Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39456116›Full record

ArticleApplied psychology. Health and well-being2025

The temporal trajectories of habit decay in daily life: An intensive longitudinal study on four health-risk behaviors.

Robert Edgren, Dario Baretta, Jennifer Inauen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Robert EdgrenDepartment of Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1901-5571
Dario BarettaDepartment of Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2866-3290
Jennifer InauenDepartment of Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7884-3222

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 10001C_200895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Habits are cue-behavior associations learned through repetition that are assumed to be relatively stable. Thereby, unhealthy habits can pose a health risk due to facilitating relapse. In the absence of research on habit decay in daily life, we aimed to investigate how habit decreases over time when trying to degrade a habit and whether this differs by four health-risk behaviors (sedentary behavior, unhealthy snacking, alcohol consumption, and smoking). This 91-day intensive longitudinal study included four parallel non-randomized groups (one per behavior; N = 194). Habit strength was measured daily with the Self-Report Behavioral Automaticity Index (11,805 observations) and modelled over time with constant, linear, quadratic, cubic, asymptotic, and logistic models. Person-specific modelling revealed asymptotic and logistic models as the most common best-fitting models (54% of the sample). The time for habit decay to stabilize ranged from 1 to 65 days. Multilevel modelling indicated substantial between-person heterogeneity and suggested initial habit strength but not the decay process to vary by behavioral group. Findings suggest that habit decay when trying to degrade a habit typically follows a decelerating negative trend but that it is a highly idiosyncratic process. Recommendations include emphasizing the role of person-specific modelling and data visualization in habit research.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingHabitsHealth Risk BehaviorsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedSmokingSnacksTime FactorsYoung Adulthabithealth‐risk behaviorintensive longitudinal methodsn‐of‐1time series

Identifiers

PMID39456116
PMCPMC11635905

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.