Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23869847›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2014

Reflecting on non-reflective action: an exploratory think-aloud study of self-report habit measures.

Benjamin Gardner, Vinca Tang

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin GardnerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, UK.
Vinca Tang
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWithin health psychology, habit - the tendency to enact action automatically as a learned response to contextual cues - is most commonly quantified using the 'Self-Report Habit Index', which assesses behavioural automaticity, or measures combining self-reported behaviour frequency and context stability. Yet, the use of self-report to capture habit has proven controversial. This study used 'think-aloud' methods to investigate problems experienced when completing these two measures.

designCross-sectional survey with think-aloud study.

methodsTwenty student participants narrated their thoughts while completing habit measures applied to four health-related behaviours (active commuting, unhealthy snacking, and one context-free and one context-specific variant of alcohol consumption). Data were coded using thematic analysis procedures.

resultsProblems were found in 10% of responses. Notable findings included participants lacking confidence in reporting automaticity, struggling to recall behaviour or cues, differing in interpretations of 'commuting', and misinterpreting items.

conclusionsWhile most responses were unproblematic, and further work is needed to investigate habit self-reports among larger and more diverse samples, findings nonetheless question the sensitivity of the measures, and the conceptualization of habit underpinning common applications of them. We offer suggestions to minimize these problems. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Habit is most commonly measured within health psychology via the Self-Report Habit Index, or a combination of self-reported behaviour frequency and contextual stability. The suitability of self-report for capturing automatic processes has been questioned. What does this study add? This is the first study of how people interpret and respond to self-report habit measures. Results show the potential for errors in recalling automaticity, cues, and behaviours. We discuss practical and theoretical challenges to assessing habit in health behaviours.

Indexed as

HabitsSelf ReportAdolescentAdultBehavioral MedicineCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleSample SizeYoung AdultHabitmeasurementself-reportthink-aloud

Identifiers

PMID23869847
PMCPMC4296343
OpenAlexW2058213215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.