Previous articleNext article FreeThe Habit-Driven ConsumerIntroduction to Special Issue: The Habit-Driven ConsumerAimee Drolet and Wendy WoodAimee Drolet Search for more articles by this author and Wendy Wood Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreConsumer researchers aim to adapt, apply, and possibly extend theories developed in the basic disciplines, such as economics, psychology, and sociology, to specific purchase and consumption contexts. Because most key aspects of consumer behavior are central research topics in other disciplines, especially psychology and economics, one would expect that developments in consumer research would reflect developments in the related disciplines. And, indeed, this has generally been the case.In the 1970s and 1980s, for example, consumer researchers’ interest in the topics of attitudes and persuasion followed directly from research in social psychology. In particular, consumer researchers applied multi-attribute (expectancy-value) attitude models (Cohen, Fishbein, and Ahtola 1972) and Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein 1977; later, Theory of Planned Behavior) directly to consumer attitudes and intentions, addressing questions such as whether attitude toward a brand (Abrand) mediates the influence of attitude toward an advertisement (Aad) on intentions to purchase a product. Furthermore, since the early 80s, most consumer researchers have used the Elaboration Likelihood Model (e.g., Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983) and the Heuristic-Systematic Model (Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly 1989) to account for consumer attitude formation and change (e.g., Sujan 1985).In contrast, consumer researchers have shown surprisingly little formal interest in the topic of habits, despite its centrality to past and recent psychological research, as well as its obvious relevance to consumer behavior. A key aim of this special issue of the Journal of the Association of Consumer Research is to redress this imbalance in the consumer behavior literature. Our hope is that this special issue’s six articles and respective commentaries will do just this.In our view, there are multiple reasons why consumer researchers have not yet embraced the topic of habits, among them:(1) The concept of habits is less clear among consumer researchers than among psychologists. The term habit derives from the Latin habitus (past participle of the verb “habere,” to have or hold), an old philosophical notion originating with Aristotle. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas translated Aristotle’s notion of hexis, which Aristotle elaborated on in his doctrine of virtue (Nicomachean Ethics), into habitus (Summa Theologica II, XLIX, 1, p. 1). Hexis has been taken to mean a dispositional state that orients emotions in situations and, in turn, behavior. In Aristotle’s view, the habituation of certain emotions is essential for character development and for virtue in character (Nicomachean Ethics, II, 5, p. 23). With Aquinas, the habit notion acquired an additional sense. For Aquinas, a habitus is a more durable disposition, mediating between ability and action (Summa Theologia II, XLIX, 3, p. 4). As Latin ceased to be the language of philosophy, the term habitus fell into disuse (Malikail 2003). Since then, habitus has generally been translated as habit, even though many concepts considered habiti, such as moderation, frugality, and prudence, are not viewed as habits by all psychologists.For experimental psychologists, the term habit has a more concentrated meaning originating in reward (instrumental) learning. Specifically, habits are context-response associations in procedural memory that develop as people repeat an action for a reward. Once a habit forms, the response is automatically brought to mind by perception of the context. This analysis differentiates habit from more motivated dispositions, especially goal-directed actions. Once formed, habits are notoriously unresponsive to people’s intentions.However, it may be that consumer researchers prefer the more expansive, classical notion of habits as entrenched dispositions to behave in certain ways, given that concepts of moderation, frugality, and prudence are frequently invoked to explain consumption behavior. Indeed, the article (“Preference-Construction Habits: The Case of Extremeness Aversion”) by marketing scholars Simonson, Sela, and Sood (2017) reflects this expanded view of habits as dispositional tendencies to behave in a certain way (i.e., choose compromise options).(2) Pre-twentieth-century psychological accounts of habits, notably those of Alexander Bain and William James, linked the repetition of behavior to its routinization and automation and the eventual tendency to form habits that require few conscious cognitive resources. However, for numerous reasons, consumer researchers’ interest in nonconscious processes has lagged behind that of psychologists. While early studies on subliminal advertising were largely hoaxes (for discussion, see Karremans, Stroebe, and Claus 2006), and later studies were unable to find sizable and reliable effects of nonconscious primes on real-world consumer behavior (although see Weingarten et al. 2016), consumer researchers have tended to explain choice behavior in conscious terms. This emphasis on the role of conscious (vs. nonconscious) psychological processes has disadvantaged consumer research on habits.(3) The article by Best and Papies (2017) shows the benefits of understanding the ways that habits and situated actions influence behavior change. Interventions that target nonconscious influences through the use of situational cues in the consumer environment provide a means of forming and changing habitual and other implicitly guided behaviors. These authors differentiate habits from situated action and demonstrate how each extends beyond common analyses treating consumers as disembodied decision makers.Given that the field of consumer behavior dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, it makes sense that the field missed out on the early days of the behaviorist revolution. Twentieth-century empirical research on habits was dominated by behavioral psychologists who sought to explain learning and memory through associations between stimuli and responses (S-R habits) (e.g., Watson 1919; Hull 1943; Skinner 1953; Miller 1959/1971). However, in the 1990s, some scholars of consumer research began to build studies based on a popular offshoot of behaviorism, Behavioral Decision Theory (BDT), and away from social cognition research. Social cognition research in the field of consumer psychology has focused mainly on attitudes as dependent variables, whereas BDT research focuses on choice, the dependent variable of interest to economists. Consumer behavior research, however, moved toward external measures of the processes that mediated choice processes, such as defaults, framing, and contextual information.A regrettable result of this trend is that consumer researchers have been slow to recognize cutting-edge twenty-first century psychological research on habits, especially research demonstrating how contextual cues spur habit performance (for a recent review, see Wood and Rünger 2016), despite that much of this work relates to choice behavior (e.g., Neal, Wood, and Drolet, 2013). In this issue, the article by Herziger and Hoelzl (2017) can be viewed within the context of that research. Herziger and Hoelzl’s research demonstrates that people’s choices are influenced more by habits in real scenarios as opposed to hypothetical ones, suggesting that marketers risk underestimating the influence of habits on choice outside of more naturalistic contexts.Another regrettable result of consumer researchers’ neglect of social psychological research on habits is incomplete understanding of behavioral intentions. For example, this issue’s article by Sheeran et al. (2017) establishes a moderating condition for when consumers’ stated intentions are in fact predictive of behavior. Given the prevalence of habits in consumers’ daily life, this understanding is important for marketers who wish to influence everyday consumer behavior. Actions that are a product of attitudes will be responsive to persuasion, whereas actions that are a product of habits will be responsive to shifts in contextual cues.(4) As mentioned, consumer research by economists has focused on observed choice and has been agnostic as to the mental processes underlying choice-making. In the economic view, observed choice might be driven by preferences, by habits, or by something else. Past (and many present) economists have been agnostic as to process partly because they did not think it was possible to discern psychological processes (they are hidden in a black box) and partly because they do not think that identifying the specific mental processes at play in choice-making ultimately matters. A noteworthy exception to this approach is the recent neuro-economic research differentiating between model-based and model-free learning of choice (e.g., Daw, Niv, and Dayan 2005). Despite the development of the field of experimental economics, the theory of preferences remains the dominant theory relied on by economists to explain and predict choice behavior.Contrary to the theory of preferences, however, many studies show internal inconsistencies in people’s preferences (e.g., Tversky and Kahneman 1985; Tversky, Sattath, and Slovic 1988). Moreover, much research indicates that conscious information processing plays a lesser role in decision-making than preference theory implies (for a summary, see Leonard, Thaler, and Sunstein 2008). In brief, to the extent that preference theory posits some exemplary style of rational deliberation—conscious, measured, and complete—it is wrong as a psychological account of how people make choices.The article by Carden et al. (2017) illustrates this well. The authors show that incentives have different effects on purchase choices depending on whether actions have been learned using conscious rules versus in a more habitual way. In view of this, one might propose an alternative to preference theory: a formal theory of choice based on habits. Such a theory would reflect a more psychology-based approach to choice than the classic theory of preference, which is directed at maximizing expected utility or desire. A habit-based theory can explain and predict choices while addressing several significant weaknesses of preference theory. For example, a theory based on habits takes into account the temporal dynamic quality of choice behavior. And, unlike in preference theory, a choice theory based on habits provides a direct apparatus to explain the formation and perpetuation of preferences and to predict choice responses. Indeed, in their article “Habits and Free Associations: Free Your Mind but Mind Your Habits,” Drolet et al. (2017) sketch a model of repeat choice (see General Discussion and commentary by Shu 2017) that recognizes the differences in the predictive role of habit versus nonhabit (e.g., free) associations.(5) A final factor discouraging (academic) consumer research into habits is that it is difficult to pursue repeated responses in a lab environment. This point is well made in the commentary in this issue by Dholakia and Tam (2017). Habits develop and decay gradually over time, and they are evoked by stimuli that occur over time. Thus, longitudinal and long-term panel data, such as grocery, clickstream, or transportation data, become great ways to identify habits and the contextual cues that prompt them, such as physical location and time of day. This information is especially useful to marketing managers who are attempting to change a novel versus well-worn consumer behavior. This point was illustrated well in the examples provided by this issue’s commentary by Harrington (2017). Notes Aimee Drolet is Professor and Marketing Area Chair at UCLA Anderson School of Management. Wendy Wood is Provost Professor of Psychology and Business, Department of Psychology & Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California. The authors would like to thank Joel Huber and James Ellis for their tremendous effort and support.ReferencesAjzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1977), “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research,” Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5), 888–918.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarAquinas, Thomas (1952), Summa Theologia II, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannic; University of Chicago.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarBest, Maisy, and Esther K. Papies (2017), “Right Here, Right Now: Situated Interventions to Change Consumer Habits,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarCarden, Lucas, Wendy Wood, David T. Neal, and Anthony Pascoe (2017), “Incentives Activate a Control Mind-Set: Good for Deliberate Behaviors, Bad for Habit Performance,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarChaiken, Shelly, Akiva Liberman, and Alice H. Eagly (1989), “Heuristic and Systematic Information Processing within and beyond the Persuasion Context,” in Unintended Thought, ed. James S. Uleman and John A. Bargh, New York: Guilford, 212–52.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarCohen, J. B., M. Fishbein, and O. T. Ahtola (1972), “The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in Consumer Attitude Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 9 (4), 456–60.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarDaw, N. D., Y. Niv, and P. Dayan (2005), “Uncertainty-Based Competition between Prefrontal and Dorsolateral Striatal Systems for Behavioral Control,” Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1704–11.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarDholakia, Utpal, and Leona Tam (2017), “Commentary: Studying Consumer Habits in the Field: Some Suggestions for Conducting Industry-Supported Research,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarDrolet, Aimee, Anand V. Bodapati, Patrick Suppes, Benjamin Rossi, and Harrison Hochwarter (2017), “Habits and Free Associations: Free Your Mind but Mind Your Habits,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHarrington, Nicholas (2017), “Commentary: Why It Doesn't Pay to Ask Consumers about Habitual Behaviors,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHerziger, Atar, and Erik Hoelzl (2017), “Underestimated Habits: Hypothetical Choice Design in Consumer Research,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarHull, C. L. (1943), Principles of Behavior: An Introduction to Behavior Theory, New York: Appleton–Century-Crofts.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarKarremans, J. C., W. Stroebe, and J. Claus (2006), “Beyond Vicary’s Fantasies: The Impact of Subliminal Priming and Brand Choice,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42 (6), 792–98.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarLeonard, T. C., R. H. Thaler, and C. R. Sunstein (2008), “Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Constitutional Political Economy, 19 (4), 356–60.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarMalikail, J. (2003), “Moral Character: Hexis, Habitus and ‘habit,’” An Internet Journal of Philosophy, 7, 1–22.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarMiller, N. (1959/1971), Selected Papers, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarNeal, D. T., W. Wood, and A. Drolet (2013), “How Do People Adhere to Goals When Willpower Is Low? The Profits (and Pitfalls) of Strong Habits,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (6), 959.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarPetty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (2), 135–46.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarSheeran, Paschal, Gaston Godin, Mark Conner, and Marc Germain (2017), “Paradoxical Effects of Experience: Past Behavior Both Strengthens and Weakens the Intention-Behavior Relationship,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarShu, Suzanne B. (2017), “Commentary: Incorporating Memory Processes into the Modeling of Habits,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSimonson, Itamar, Aner Sela, and Sanjay Sood (2017), “Preference-Construction Habits: The Case of Extremeness Aversion,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2 (3), in this issue.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSkinner, B. F. (1953), Science and Human Behavior, New York: Simon & Schuster.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarSujan, Mita (1985), “Consumer Knowledge: Effects on Evaluation Strategies Mediating Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (1), 31–46.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarTversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman (1985), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” in Environmental Impact Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk Analysis, Berlin: Springer, 107–29.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarTversky, Amos, S. Sattath, and P. Slovic (1988), “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice,” Psychological Review, 95 (3), 371–84.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarWatson, J. B. (1919), Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, Philadelphia: Lippencott.First citation in articleGoogle ScholarWeingarten, E., Q. Chen, M. McAdams, J. Yi, J. Hepler, and D. Albarracín (2016), “From Primed Concepts to Action: A Meta-Analysis of the Behavioral Effects of Incidentally Presented Words,” Psychological Bulletin, 142 (5), 472–97.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle ScholarWood, Wendy, and D. Rünger (2016), “Psychology of Habit,” Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314.First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Journal of the Association for Consumer Research Volume 2, Number 3July 2017The Habit-Driven ConsumerGuest Editors: Aimee Drolet and Wendy Wood Sponsored by the Association for Consumer Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/695139 HistoryPublished online November 10, 2017 © 2017 the Association for Consumer Research. All rights reservedPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Saerom Wang A Conceptualization of Tourists’ Food Behavior from a Habit Perspective, Sustainability 15, no.33 (Feb 2023): 2662.https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032662Arturo Molina-Collado, Jessica Salgado-Sequeiros, Mar Gómez-Rico, Evangelina Aranda García, Peter De Maeyer Key themes in consumer financial services research from 2000 to 2020: a bibliometric and science mapping analysis, International Journal of Bank Marketing 39, no.77 (Aug 2021): 1446–1478.https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2021-0043Jesús Cambra-Fierro, Iguácel Melero-Polo, Lia Patrício, F. Javier Sese Channel Habits and the Development of Successful Customer-Firm Relationships in Services, Journal of Service Research 23, no.44 (Apr 2020): 456–475.https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520916791