Deliberative Process Research Articles

Explaining civilian control of militarisation in Indonesia: The case of military law amendment

This study explores the civilian control of militarisation practice in Indonesia, which refers to the discursive politics involving citizenry in the legitimisation mechanism of the use of military force for defence and non-defence objectives. To explore the empirical manifestation of the concept, the study applies the discourse network analysis method, which combines qualitative content analysis and social network analysis to investigate the public debates over the military law amendment. Accordingly, the study collected a dataset of 227 statements from 55 actors in 118 news articles on the military law amendment from May to July 2023. The analysis reveals that, first, the discourse was dominated by actors from non-governmental organisations, think tanks, and academia. Second, the discourse was driven by several main concerns, such as the return of military dual-function doctrine, the current state of military personnel occupying civilian posts, and the urgency of public participation in the deliberation process of the amendment. This article argues that the configuration of the dominant actors and the prominent issues reflect the prevalence of inward-looking defence policy orientation issue in Indonesia.

Anticipatory evaluation

Starting with the Australian Evaluation Society 2024 Conference theme of ‘wayfinding’, the article reflects on how evaluators navigate time as well as space, with particular reference to how they incorporate qualitative approaches to ‘futures thinking’ into their evaluative practice. The article takes a reflexive case study approach, drawing on a simple model of evaluative practice to review the role of futures thinking in evaluation of doctoral research projects, impact investments, social assistance, and development studies as an academic field. The article focuses particularly on the role of ‘backcasting’, as well as deliberative processes and the causal mapping of narrative claims linking future possibilities to current thinking and activities.

Boundary crossings: innovating assessment practices in higher education

Purpose Advancing assessment practices represents an underexplored yet integral dimension of further progress for the field of sustainability-related teaching and learning in higher education. This study aims to address this area by seeking to understand the barriers that program leaders and instructors face in advancing assessment practices to identify possible innovations. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual framework centered on boundaries and boundary crossings is used to conceptualize barriers and possibilities in innovating assessment practices. The study then examines how a boundary object, the deliberation of assessment practices among a sustainability education community of practice, can be leveraged to identify boundaries and boundary crossings. Through an exploratory action research approach, data were collected via workshops, interviews and a survey. These were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings Six themes were identified as key areas for barriers and possibilities for advancing assessment practices. These themes are: defining sustainability education, practice characteristics, interdisciplinary approaches, transdisciplinary strategies, meeting demands and facilitating innovations. For each theme, status quo practices and potential innovations are described as well as boundary-crossing strategies to enable advances in practice. Originality/value This study considers the conceptual, practical and logistical breakthroughs needed to advance assessment practices across course, program and institutional levels of sustainability-related teaching and learning in higher education. The insights from the study provide considerations for the design and implementation of assessment practices while also suggesting the value of participatory deliberative processes in shaping innovations in practice.

Fraught Expectations: A Fairness Heuristic Process Model of the Pros and Cons of CSR for Talent Acquisition

ABSTRACTCorporate social responsibility (CSR) is purely an asset when it comes to talent acquisition: that is the dominant narrative among Human Resource Management (HRM) practitioners and scholars alike. Growing evidence, however, gives reason to question this assumption. Accordingly, in this conceptual paper, we develop a process model to articulate both the pros and cons of CSR for recruitment. Using fairness heuristic theory as a central organizing framework, we integrate three theoretical perspectives into the HRM and micro‐CSR literatures. First, we leverage dual‐processing attribution theory to propose that job seekers process information about CSR through both heuristic and deliberative processes, leading them to attribute employer CSR to substantive or symbolic motives. We explain how CSR attributions represent a fairness heuristic, meaning a proxy for how trustworthy job seekers appraise an employer to be. Second, invoking expectancy violation theory, we propose that the more job seekers attribute employer CSR to substantive (symbolic) motives, the higher (lower) their justice expectations will be, thereby increasing (decreasing) the consequences to employers for violating those expectations. Third, expanding scholarship on the dynamic nature of organizational fairness perceptions, we propose that job seekers update their attributions of employer CSR in a recursive cycle that can improve, but tends to degrade, as the recruitment process unfolds—particularly if they have high expectations to begin with. In so doing, we nudge the talent acquisition literature beyond static, fixed‐in‐time accounts to a more representative description of the dynamic and dual‐sided role of CSR in recruitment over time.

Fair processes for financing universal health coverage?

Although the fair financing report, 'Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage', has many sage things to say about democratic deliberative processes, its title belies its content: the report does not offer any assessment of processes for financing universal health coverage. What it does instead is scrutinise processes for deciding how to finance universal health coverage without any linkage to substantive questions concerning financing, and, moreover, the discussion is not narrowly focused on fairness.

Improving the depth and complexity of stakeholder deliberation using images: Experimental evidence from Indonesia

In this study, we tested interventions to improve the depth and complexity of deliberation processes with rural aquaculture farmers in Indonesia facing collective action problems in governing water distribution. The field experiment was conducted in four aquaculture villages in Lombok, Indonesia, where farmers were actively involved in the co-management PITAP program to maintain irrigation canals. The intervention was a version of the Social-Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) translated into images that depicted the variables of the framework in the context of the case study. We hypothesized that the connected image-based SESF deliberation tool could facilitate more in-depth discussions on the complexities of social and ecological issues compared to baseline (no images) and control groups (images with no framework relationships). To gauge the farmers' intent to care for irrigation canals post-PITAP collectively, we employed the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) from environmental psychology. Our experimental study revealed that employing the SESF as an image-based deliberation tool did not measurably improve the depth and complexity of the discussions within the context of the traditional aquaculture communities in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the data derived from the content of discussions indicates that employing the image-based tool results in different but important outcomes among the experimental groups with implications for a better understanding of context and culture where deliberation processes occur. We further reflected on our findings on the hierarchical societal relationships in the context of rural communities in Indonesia that influence the deliberation style and reception.

Breaking the Black Box: When Jury Experimentation Becomes Jury Misconduct

For centuries, juries in criminal trials have retreated to the privacy of their “black box” to deliberate and decide a defendant’s guilt or innocence. The secrecy of the deliberation process is a hallmark of a democratic system that tasks the public with holding their neighbors accountable to community standards. What happens, however, when this curtain of confidentiality shields troubling impropriety? Jury experimentation with evidence is one circumstance that may justify a look inside the black box. Although jurors are encouraged during deliberations to examine trial evidence, experiments in the jury room may violate a defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial by introducing “new evidence” that the defendant does not have the opportunity to challenge in open court. Moreover, procedural “no-impeachment” rules often prohibit jurors from testifying to the process through which they reached their verdict after it has been delivered. In the absence of clarification from the U.S. Supreme Court, courts at the state and federal level are deeply split on how to approach the issue of juror experimentation with evidence. This Note examines the tension between the judicial system’s policy of jury secrecy and the potentially competing commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of defendants. This Note argues against revising the federal and state no-impeachment rules to create additional windows into the juror deliberation process, which would disturb the important function of judicial finality. Rather, trial counsel should utilize the full breadth of in-court mechanisms available to prevent improper experimentation. Judges should consider the extent to which pre-verdict remedies were used and whether the defendant was prejudiced when determining whether juror misconduct occurred.

Global public concerns about climate change: the role of education, direct experience, and indirect experience

Global climate action will likely be motivated by public concerns about climate change. To examine what may drive public concerns about climate change around the world, we present analyses of survey data collected in 121 countries for the 2021 Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll. In line with dual-process theories of risk perception, we found that climate change concerns were predicted by education, which may facilitate deliberative processing, and direct experience with harm by severe weather, which may facilitate experiential processing. Knowing someone else who had been harmed by severe weather also predicted climate change concerns, highlighting the role of indirect experience. These relationshipsgenerally held across continents and countries varying in disaster-risk level. We conclude that climate change communications should target individuals with lower levels of education, and explain what climate change might mean for people’s experiences with severe weather, including themselves as well as others.

Improving hospital care for people who use drugs: deliberative process development of a clinical guideline for opioid withdrawal management

BackgroundManagement of opioid withdrawal in hospital settings is crucial to improve treatment completion and health outcomes among patients who use opioids, such as heroin. Evidence-based clinical guidelines can support responsive provision of opioid substitution therapy (OST). In England there is no standardised application of guidance for substance dependence management across National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals. A recent review of NHS hospital policies identified varying approaches to managing opioid withdrawal and procedural barriers to timely medication.ObjectiveTo develop a clinical guideline for opioid withdrawal management in acute NHS hospital trusts to be tested and evaluated as part of the iHOST (Improving Hospital Opioid Substitution Therapy) research intervention.MethodsWe undertook a deliberative guideline development process. The University London College Hospital (UCLH) substance dependence guideline was used as a template, with key points of revision informed by evidence review, consultations with hospital staff and people with opioid dependence. A multidisciplinary working group deliberated evidence statements to develop recommendations. These were reviewed by an oversight committee comprising representatives from key stakeholder organisations. The team authored the guideline with iterative review by the oversight committee, key stakeholders and UCLH clinical governance committees.ResultsDeliberation focused on three key domains: (1) identifying opioid dependence and promptly continuing existing OST prescriptions; (2) initiating or re-titrating OST; (3) ensuring safety and continuity of care at discharge. Changes to the UCLH guideline included removal of mandatory urine drug testing prior to OST; increasing initial methadone titration dose; and provision for a higher day-one titration dose when specific safety criteria are met. A new titration schedule for sublingual buprenorphine was incorporated. Discharge planning to ensure continuity of community care and reduce risk of opioid overdose was emphasised, with allowance for bridging prescriptions of OST and naloxone provision on hospital discharge.ConclusionThe iHOST clinical guideline aims to remove procedural barriers to opioid withdrawal management for hospital inpatients. It is intended to be implemented by other NHS hospitals, which could improve access to OST and reduce discrepancies in treatment access and completion.Study registrationISRCTN47320412 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN47320412.

Deliberative Democracy in the Digital Age Opportunities and Challenges of Online Public Discourse

Deliberative democracy is a model of democracy in which decision-making processes are based on public participation, and public debate is prioritised. In this model, citizens make joint decisions through rational discussion and negotiation, and this process forms the basis of democratic legitimacy. As one of the main actors in 21st-century democracy debates, deliberative democracy aims to create more inclusive and fair policies by encouraging broad participation. In the digital age, the concept of deliberative democracy faces new challenges and opportunities. This study examines the intersection between deliberative democracy and digital technologies, focusing on how online platforms influence public discourse and democratic engagement. The core objective is to explore how digital technologies enhance inclusivity, speed, and scalability in deliberative processes while simultaneously raising concerns about misinformation, polarization, and exclusion. Drawing from the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy, which emphasizes rational discourse and public reasoning, the paper investigates the benefits and challenges that arise when deliberation moves online. Through case studies such as Iceland's crowdsourced constitution, global climate change discussions, and the role of social media during the 2020 U.S. election, the paper highlights how digital platforms facilitate rapid, large-scale deliberation but also contribute to political fragmentation and echo chambers. The study employs a qualitative research methodology, analyzing the impact of digital platforms on deliberative processes through literature reviews and case studies. The hypothesis is that while digital platforms offer significant potential for enhancing democratic deliberation by broadening participation, they also present new risks to the integrity of public discourse, particularly due to misinformation and the manipulation of algorithms. Ultimately, the paper argues that deliberative democracy must adapt to the realities of the digital age by integrating online and offline deliberation, fostering digital literacy, and establishing regulatory frameworks for transparency and accountability. The findings offer theoretical contributions to understanding the relationship between digital technology and democracy while also providing practical recommendations for enhancing the quality of digital public discourse.

Actor Sensemaking and its Role in Implementation of the Decentralized Drug-Resistant TB Policy in South Africa.

South Africa has a high burden of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). A policy to decentralize DR-TB treatment from specialized central hospitals to more accessible district facilities was introduced in 2011, but to date implementation has been suboptimal, with variable pace, coverage and models of care emerging. This study explored multilevel policy implementation of DR-TB decentralization in two provinces of South Africa, Western Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. Applying interpretive policy analysis, this paper describes how actors across health system levels and geographies made sense of the DR-TB policy and how this shaped implementation. In an embedded qualitative case study, districts of the two provinces were compared, through data collected in 94 in-depth interviews, and analysed using Vickers' framework of reality, value and action judgements. Five district cases characterise variation in the pace of implementation and models of DR-TB care that emerged. Individual and collective attitudes for and against the policy were underpinned by different systems of meaning for interpreting policy problems and making decisions. These meaning systems were reflected in actor stances on whether DR-TB care needed to be specialized or generalized, nurse- or doctor-led, and institutionalized or ambulatory. Actors' stances influenced their actions and implementation strategies adopted. Resistance to decentralized DR-TB care related to perceived threats of budget cuts to and loss of authority of central facilities, and was often justified in fears of increased transmission, poor quality of care and inadequate resources at lower levels. New advances in diagnosis and treatment to address the growing burden of DR-TB in South Africa will have little impact unless implementation dynamics are better understood, and attention paid to the mindsets, interests and interpretations of policy by actors tasked with implementation. Deliberative policy implementation processes will enhance the quality of discourse, communication and cross-learning between policy actors, critical for reaching synthesis of meaning systems.

The role of deliberation in intuitive decision-making in sports

ABSTRACT In sports, athletes are frequently challenged to make decisions under time constraints. The ability of skilled athletes to make successful and seemingly effortless decisions in these situations is often referred to as intuition. However, how athletes develop intuition remains to be elucidated. A key issue highly debated between proponents of opposing theoretical views is whether the development of intuitive decision-making benefits from the involvement of deliberate cognitive processes (explicit vs. implicit). In this perspective paper, we critically assess theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for these contradictory views. Moreover, by delving into cognitive psychological assumptions rooted in dual-process theory, we elucidate the proposed processes underlying the development of intuitive decision-making. While the use of implicit approaches seems to be increasingly questioned in this domain, a promising recent theoretical proposal argues that intuition is formed through repeated practice of deliberative processes. We argue in favor of this approach and present suggestions for empirical research to test the proposal for the development of intuitive decision-making in sport. Finally, we illustrate suggestions for future research and critically discuss the potential and limitations of such an approach.

Die Brücke zwischen Theorie und Praxis schlagen: Veranschaulichung von Implementierungsansätzen für komplexe Familieninterventionen

BackgroundThe introduction of complex family interventions poses a challenge since they consist of various interacting components which affect multiple players and often require changes in behaviour and work processes. Implementation success is strongly influenced by environmental factors. The comprehensive implementation of complex interventions therefore needs a deliberate and systematic implementation process, including its evaluation. Implementation science offers a variety of theories and methods to support the integration and evaluation of complex family health interventions in real-world settings, requiring a broad spectrum of knowledge and skills for clinicians and researchers alike. Hence, specific examples may be relevant to both clinicians and researchers who wish to systematically address know-do gaps in clinical practice. AimThe aim is to describe and illustrate how complex family interventions can be systematically designed, evaluated and implemented using implementation science frameworks and methods by drawing on two research projects – namely the Family Support in Intensive Care Units (FICUS) and Bereavement Support for Families (B4F). Methodical steps to implementationFive steps were used to implement and evaluate the interventions across both research projects: 1) engaging key persons and families, 2) identifying gaps in care and developing/adapting the intervention, 3) understanding the implementation context, 4) tailoring implementation approaches, and 5) evaluating implementation progress and success. Discussion and conclusionThe five illustrated steps allow for a theory-guided but nevertheless pragmatic approach in the implementation of complex family interventions. This approach may serve as a guide to integrate complex interventions and evidence-based practices into routine care and to close know-do gaps.

United for change: deliberative coalition formation to change the status quo

We study a setting in which a community wishes to identify a strongly supported proposal from a space of alternatives, in order to change the status quo. We describe a deliberation process in which agents dynamically form coalitions around proposals that they prefer over the status quo. We formulate conditions on the space of proposals and on the ways in which coalitions are formed that guarantee deliberation to succeed, that is, to terminate by identifying a proposal with the largest possible support. Our results provide theoretical foundations for the analysis of deliberative processes such as the ones that take place in online systems for democratic deliberation support.

Understanding and improving the quality of primary care for people in prison: a mixed-methods study.

People in prison are generally in poorer health than their peers in the community, often living with chronic illness and multimorbidity. Healthcare research in prisons has largely focused on specific problems, such as substance use; less attention has been paid to conditions routinely managed in primary care, such as diabetes or hypertension. It is important to understand how primary care in prisons is currently delivered in the United Kingdom and how it can be improved, in order to reduce health inequalities. To understand the quality of primary care in prison, including gaps and variations in care, in order to recommend how quality of prison health care can be improved. A mixed-methods study with six interlinked work packages. Predominantly the North of England. Between August 2019 and June 2022, we undertook the following work packages: (1) International scoping review of prison healthcare quality indicators. (2) Stakeholder consensus process to identify United Kingdom focused prison healthcare quality indicators. (3) Qualitative interview study with 21 people who had been in prison and 22 prison healthcare staff. (4) Quantitative analysis of anonymised, routinely collected data derived from prison healthcare records (~ 25,000 records across 13 prisons). (5) Stakeholder deliberation process to identify interventions to improve prison health care. (6a) Secondary analysis of the qualitative data set, focusing on mental health and (6b) analysis of the quantitative data set, focusing on health care of three mental health subgroups. Our scoping review found predominantly only papers from the United States of America and of variable rigour with the main finding being that performance measurement is very challenging in the prison healthcare setting. In collaboration with stakeholders, we prioritised, refined and applied a suite of 30 quality indicators across several healthcare domains. We found considerable scope for improvement in several indicators and wide variations in indicator achievement that could not be attributed to differences in prison population characteristics. Examples of indicators with scope for improvement included: diabetes care, medicines reconciliation and epilepsy review and control. Longer length of stay in prison was generally associated with higher achievement than shorter stays. Indicator achievement was generally low compared to that of community general practice. We found some encouraging trends and relatively good performance for a minority of indicators. Our qualitative interviews found that quality of health care is related to factors that exist at several levels but is heavily influenced by organisational factors, such as understaffing, leading to a reactive and sometimes crisis-led service. Our stakeholder deliberations suggested opportunities for improvement, ideally drawing on data to assess and drive improvement. Our mental health work package found that coded mental illness had mixed associations with indicator achievement, while the interviews revealed that mental distress is viewed by many as an inevitable facet of imprisonment. Our analyses of indicator achievement were limited by the quality and coverage of available data. Most study findings are localised to England so international applicability may differ. Marked variations in the quality of primary care in prisons are likely to be attributable to the local organisation and conditions of care delivery. Routinely collected data may offer a credible driver for change. This study is registered at researchregistry.com (Ref: 5098). This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/05/26) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 46. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

An exploratory study of blind spot bias in psychiatrists: The value of mindfulness and ethical skills’

IntroductionPsychiatry is an area of medicine that is particularly exposed to the risks of cognitive bias, notably because diagnosis is subjective. However, psychiatrists may develop psycho-cognitive skills that protect against bias, as the reflective approach to their patients favors the activation of system 2 (logical) as opposed to system 1 (intuitive) processes. Furthermore, the collegial practices found in psychiatry, a consequence of the ethical questions psychiatrists must address, can also mitigate the impact of bias. On the other hand, clinical ethics committees have adopted structured deliberation practices that aim to improve collective decision-making and limit the cognitive biases associated with groupthink. ObjectiveThe primary aim was to compare blind spot bias in a group of psychiatrists and a group of ‘ethicists’, experts in group deliberation. The secondary objective was to study the distribution of skills influencing the balance between systems 1 and 2 (notably, ethical deliberation, feeling of efficacy, mindfulness, and values) in both groups. The general hypothesis is that psychiatrists are less prone to blind spot bias and are more competent in the skills studied. MethodsThis descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted from April 2022 to May 2023. Thirty-two psychiatrists were recruited from several French hospitals, along with 20 ‘ethicists’. All participants completed the following self-administered questionnaires: the Bias Blind Spot Scale (French version), the Euro Moral Case Deliberation (Euro-MCD, ethical skills), Bandura's self-efficacy scale (self and collective efficacy), the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (mindfulness), and the Schwartz Value Survey (values). ResultsThe ratio of self/other blind spot bias was lower in the ‘ethicists’ group than the psychiatrists’ group (P<0.001). Euro-MCD scores were higher (P<0.001) and psychiatrists tended to have a better sense of collective efficacy (P=0.08). No significant difference was found between the two groups for total mindfulness or presence and acceptance sub-scores. Scores for hedonic value were higher among psychiatrists (P<0.02). ConclusionThe results do not confirm our hypotheses. There is less evidence of blind spot bias among our sample of ‘ethicists’, who are experts in group deliberation, than psychiatrists, who have experience of the patient/physician dyad. The ethical skills that are developed within the formal deliberation process seem particularly interesting in terms of reducing cognitive bias.

Expanding student access to higher education: Examining the strategic processes for enhancing access to higher education from TVET colleges to universities of technology

In this article, the vexed issue of expanding access to higher education in South Africa is explored by investigating the pathways between technical and vocational education and training (TVET) colleges and universities of technology (UoTs). Central to this examination is the Unfurling Post-School Education and Training (UPSET) project, which seeks to formalise these pathways and establish a more inclusive and adaptable higher education system. Drawing on Hall’s (1996) theory of articulation and the concept of relational autonomy, the article highlights the transformative potential of strategic collaborations between TVET colleges and UoTs. Using a qualitative case study conducted at a university of technology in the Western Cape province, South Africa, the article describes the complexities of developing jointly offered higher certificates (HCs) in the post-school sector. It emphasises the strategic role of the UPSET project in revitalising existing practices and cultivating deliberate processes and practices to expand access to vocational education. The article contends that UoTs are ideally positioned to facilitate jointly offered HCs based on their integration of theoretical and practical knowledge and their robust industry affiliations. Furthermore, the article highlights various epistemological approaches to developing HCs in UoTs. It argues for a more integrated higher education system that values both vocational and academic pathways and contributes to social justice and economic empowerment in South Africa.

Unmasking the Aversive Stigmatizer: Integrating Deliberate and Automatic Cognition in the Study of Mental Health Stigma and Perceived Dangerousness

Scholars posit that mental health stigma may be the product of both deliberate (i.e., intentional and conscious) and automatic (i.e., effortless and nonconscious) cognitive processes. Yet, few sociological studies have empirically tested this theoretical assumption with valid measures of automatic cognition. This study integrates explicit and implicit stigma measures to investigate the presence of a potentially unique actor in the stigma process, the aversive stigmatizer: individuals who deliberately reject negative cultural stereotypes but still hold implicit mental illness-related biases that may inadvertently influence discriminatory behaviors. Findings suggest that a substantial portion of the sample are aversive stigmatizers and that these actors are disproportionately present among certain social groups. Thus, this study sheds light on a previously hidden population that likely contributes to prejudice and discrimination, as well as advances our theoretical understanding of both public stigma and self-stigma.

Deliberation, Polarization, and Emotion: A Deliberative Process about Climate Change with Young Participants

Deliberation, Polarization, and Emotion: A Deliberative Process about Climate Change with Young Participants

Look, over there! A streaker! – Qualitative study examining streaking as a behaviour change technique for habit formation in recreational runners

ABSTRACT Background Running as a form of physical activity is beneficial to overall health and wellbeing. The aim of the study is to examine ‘run streaking’ (i.e. running on consecutive days, for a minimum period of time or distance, typically at least one mile) as a technique for habit formation and behaviour change. Methods Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 21 recreational adult runners (11 female and 10 male). Run streak length ranged from a minimum of 100 days to over 4500 days. Transcripts were analysed using a hybrid deductive–inductive thematic analysis. Results Run streaking was reported to lead to several benefits, health improvements and a sense of accomplishment, although many run streakers reported running through injuries and lack of recovery. Accounts of run streaking showed features of automaticity indicative of habitual behaviour. Other behavioural processes identified included motivation, identity, self-regulation and social support. Behavioural streaking showed the potential to influence change in behaviours other than running. Conclusion Accounts of run streaking demonstrate an interplay between automatic and deliberate processes in the maintenance of running behaviour. Behavioural streaking is a technique that could be used in other behaviour change contexts beyond running to support habit formation.