For some time now, habits — both small and large — have been a staple of self-management strategies, or as I like to call it: Productivity Porn. A slew of popular science books has brought the concept of habits into the mainstream. While many of the promoted ideas do work, the way habits are often portrayed in these guides tend to oversimplify the reality. They suggest that all stable behaviours are habitual and that forming new habits automatically leads to positive, long-term changes. However, this perspective fails to capture the true complexity of habits, as a recent study highlights.

The Habit Trinity: Duhigg, Clear, and Guise

The three most popular books on the subject — The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg, Atomic Habits by James Clear, and Elastic Habits by Stephen Guise — share common ground in emphasizing the profound influence habits have on our lives and how deeply they are embedded in our brain structures. Duhigg describes habit formation as “chunking,” where the brain automates sequences of actions to conserve energy. Clear emphasizes that habits are formed through frequency, not time, stating that the number of repetitions matters more than the duration.

All three authors agree on the three-step cycle of a habit : cue, routine, and reward. They highlight how modifying the routine while keeping the cue and reward constant can alter a habit.

Diverging Paths: Different Approaches to Habit Formation

While Duhigg, Clear, and Guise agree on the fundamentals, their approaches differ significantly:

1. The Role of Cravings: Duhigg stresses the importance of cravings as the driving force behind habits, arguing that we must develop a desire to establish a new habit successfully. Clear, on the other hand, focuses more on the environment and deliberately designing cues to change habits.
2. Flexibility vs. Rigidity: In Elastic Habits, Guise advocates for flexibility in habit formation. He promotes “mini habits” — small, manageable steps — and adapting goals to different situations. This approach contrasts with rigid habit systems, which often fail because they do not account for the dynamic nature of life.

What Are Habits, Really?

To delve deeper into what habits truly are, Gardner et al. explored this in their study, “What is habit and how can it be used to change real-world behaviour? Narrowing the theory-reality gap,” published in May 2024 in Social and Personality Psychology Compass. According to the authors, habits are essentially “mental links between a situation (cue) and an action (response).” These links form through repeated performance of an action in a specific context, creating a mental association.

“Forming a habit means connecting a situation you often encounter with the action you usually take. These connections help by creating impulses that push us to do the usual action without thinking. But the pushes from habits are just one of many feelings we might have at any time.” — Dr. Benjamin Gardner, co-author of the study

Critique of the Popular Science Perspective

Gardner and his colleagues also offer critical insights into the popular science portrayal of habits:

1. Habits Are Not Unbreakable: Contrary to popular belief, habits are not simply automated programs that control our behaviour. They compete with other impulses, such as intentions, plans, and emotions, which can be stronger and influence our actions at any given moment.
2. Behaviour Change Is Complex: Forming a new habit does not guarantee lasting behaviour change. Unforeseen events or setbacks can cause individuals to revert to old behaviours, even if a habit has been established.

Habit vs. Habitual Behaviour

It is essential to distinguish between “habit” and “habitual behaviour.” A “habit” refers to the cognitive process — the learned association between a cue and a response — while “habitual behaviour” describes the action prompted by this process. This distinction underscores that while habits can support sustained behaviour change, they do not automatically lead to lasting changes.

Sustainable Behaviour Change Requires More Than Habits

Establishing and maintaining a new habit requires strategies beyond mere repetition. These include contingency plans for setbacks and consciously reflecting on the habit. Understanding one’s motivation and making deliberate decisions for change also play crucial roles.

“When trying to make a new behaviour stick, it’s a good idea to form a habit and have a backup plan for dealing with setbacks, such as keeping healthy snacks on hand that you can quickly grab on busy mornings.” — Dr. Phillippa Lally, co-author of the study

Strategies for Overcoming Unwanted Habits

Breaking unwanted habits involves interrupting the process that translates them into actions. Some strategies include:

1. Inhibiting Habits: This involves consciously suppressing the habitual impulse by either refraining from initiating an action or prematurely interrupting an ongoing sequence of actions. This strategy requires awareness of contextual cues and sufficient motivation and willpower to monitor and inhibit unwanted responses.
2. Reducing Behavioural Accessibility: Making it harder to engage in a habitual action after the impulse has been triggered, such as by blocking access to certain behaviours or increasing the effort required to perform them. For instance, if one regularly engages in online gambling, one might consider blocking gambling transactions on their payment cards.
3. Interrupting Habitual Cues: This strategy involves deliberately limiting exposure to the cues that trigger unwanted responses. This requires awareness of potential triggers and the ability to avoid them. For example, if certain friends tempt you into online gambling, you might reduce contact with those friends.
4. Habit Replacement: This involves directly replacing a habit association with another. In practice, this requires elements of habit inhibition or reducing behavioural accessibility to block an unwanted habit, along with habit formation strategies to promote a desired alternative. For example, replacing the habit of eating unhealthy snacks with healthier alternatives.

Conclusion

While popular science books offer valuable tools and strategies for forming new habits, the scientific perspective sheds light on the complexity of the topic, showing that habits are not a guarantee for lasting behaviour change. It is important to be aware of these nuances and view habits as one tool among many in the context of a holistic approach to behaviour change.

This is an English translation of a blog post that was originally published in the author’s blog in German.

In today’s digitally connected world, smartphones have become a constant companion for many of us. But how does the mere presence of this device affect our cognitive abilities? This question was first raised by the “Brain Drain” hypothesis, which suggests that the mere presence of a smartphone can impair our mental capacity. In this article, we will delve into the original study that introduced this hypothesis and explore the latest scientific findings that challenge its validity.

What Is the Brain Drain Hypothesis?

The Brain Drain hypothesis was introduced by a groundbreaking study published in 2017 in the Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. The study, titled “Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity,”¹ was conducted by psychologist Adrian F. Ward and his colleagues. Ward and his team aimed to determine whether the mere presence of a smartphone could impair cognitive performance, particularly working memory — the mental system that helps us store information about what we are currently doing.

In the study’s experiments, participants were asked to remember words while simultaneously solving maths problems, a task designed to tax working memory. Participants had their smartphones either on the table, in their pockets, or in another room. The results showed that the further away the smartphone was, the better the participants performed. This suggested that even the mere presence of a smartphone consumes cognitive resources, even if one is not actively thinking about it.

What Do More Recent Studies Say?

Since the publication of Ward et al.’s original study in 2017, other researchers have attempted to verify and confirm the Brain Drain hypothesis. One of the most comprehensive investigations is a 2022 meta-analysis by Douglas A. Parry, titled “Does the mere presence of a smartphone impact cognitive performance? A meta-analysis of the ‘brain drain effect.’”² Parry, Lecturer in Socio-Informatics at Stellenbosch University, analysed data from 27 different studies to gain a clearer picture of the actual impact of smartphone presence on cognitive performance.

Parry’s meta-analysis examined five cognitive functions: working memory, sustained attention, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and fluid intelligence. In total, he looked at 56 effect sizes from the 27 studies. The findings were revealing: out of the five cognitive functions, only working memory showed a statistically significant negative effect from the presence of a smartphone. No significant effects were found for the other four cognitive functions.

Not as Bad as It Seems

These findings align with the original results from Ward and his colleagues, but with an important caveat: Parry’s meta-analysis found that the negative effect on working memory was much smaller than initially thought. While Ward et al. observed a notable impact on working memory, Parry’s analysis revealed that the effect, though present, was relatively minor.

This discrepancy between the original results and the meta-analysis suggests that the mere presence of a smartphone may not be as detrimental as initially feared. The meta-analysis also raises questions about individual variability: how much a person is affected by the presence of a smartphone could depend on personal factors, such as the importance they place on their phone or their susceptibility to “Fear of Missing Out” (FOMO).³ These factors could explain why some people are more affected than others.

Overall, Parry’s meta-analysis indicates that the negative impact of smartphone presence on cognitive performance is less severe than originally assumed.

Conclusion

While the original 2017 study by Ward et al. proposed that the mere presence of a smartphone could significantly impair cognitive performance, a comprehensive meta-analysis by Doug Parry in 2022 shows that the effects are less dramatic. Here are the key takeaways:

1. Original Hypothesis: Ward and his colleagues’ 2017 study suggested that the presence of a smartphone reduces working memory and cognitive capacity.
2. Research Methods: Ward et al. measured cognitive performance through tasks that required participants to remember words and solve maths problems while their smartphone was either nearby or farther away.
3. 2022 Meta-Analysis: Doug Parry analysed data from 27 studies and found that the negative impact of a smartphone on cognitive performance, particularly working memory, is present but smaller than initially thought.
4. Variability of Effects: Parry’s analysis showed that the effect on working memory was significant, but no significant effects were found for other cognitive functions.
5. Practical Implications: The findings suggest that the presence of a smartphone is less impairing than expected, though individual differences may exist, depending on personal factors such as the importance of the smartphone or susceptibility to FOMO.

Parry’s meta-analysis indicates that initial concerns about cognitive impairments due to the presence of a smartphone may have been overstated. For many people, the distraction caused by smartphones is likely more of a “Brain Drip” than a “Brain Drain.”

References

[1] https://doi.org/10.1086/691462

[2] https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2286647

[3] As of 2013, there is an officially psychologically validated scale for FOMO: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014

This is an English translation of a blog post that was originally published in the author’s blog in German.