IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Habit science coaching

Habit science coaching takes findings from research on how habits form and change and turns them into a working plan: one specific behaviour, a reliable cue, a first step small enough to repeat, and a way of tracking whether the behaviour is becoming automatic. It draws on work by Wendy Wood, B. J. Fogg and Phillippa Lally, among others. Studies of habit formation in everyday life, and of if-then planning, exist. No controlled trial of habit science coaching as a coaching format turned up in the searches for this page, so the research supports the building blocks more than the packaged approach.

What it is

A habit-science conversation starts with one behaviour you want to become automatic, or one you want to stop running on autopilot. The coach asks when it happens, what comes just before it, and what it does for you. Context gets as much attention as intention, because much of everyday behaviour is repeated in the same settings, and the research treats habits as responses triggered by those settings rather than as a matter of willpower alone.

The working tools come from several research traditions: making the behaviour small enough to repeat, linking it to a routine that already happens, planning with if-then statements, and tracking repetitions. The coach combines these around your situation rather than following a fixed protocol. Progress is judged partly by how automatic the behaviour feels over time, not only by whether it happened once.

Where it comes from

Habit research in psychology grew through the 2000s and 2010s. Wood and colleagues studied habits as part of everyday life (Wood, Quinn & Kashy, 2002), and later reviewed the field (Wood & Rünger, 2016). Lally and colleagues followed volunteers who repeated a chosen behaviour daily for 12 weeks and modelled how automaticity grew (Lally et al., 2010).

B. J. Fogg's behaviour model, published for persuasive technology design in 2009, holds that a behaviour is more likely when motivation, ability and a prompt come together (Fogg, 2009). The coaching form draws on that model and on the wider finding that changing intentions alone does not reliably change behaviour (Webb & Sheeran, 2006).

The principles underneath

Cues come before habits

Many habitual actions are launched by a place, a time or a preceding event. Changing the cue can be a more direct route than deciding again in the moment (Wood & Neal, 2007).

Repetition in a steady context builds automaticity

In Lally and colleagues' daily tracking, automaticity rose along a curve that differed a great deal between people. The time taken to reach 95% of the individual ceiling ranged from 18 to 254 days (Lally et al., 2010).

Start with a step you can repeat on a poor day

A small first version of a behaviour is easier to repeat than a full routine. Fogg's model treats ability as one of the conditions a behaviour needs before it happens (Fogg, 2009).

Plan the when and where

If-then plans link a situation to an action in advance. A meta-analysis of implementation intentions examined their effects on goal achievement (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006).

How a session runs

  1. You name one behaviour you want to become automatic, or one you want to stop doing on autopilot, and the coach asks you to describe exactly what it looks like.
  2. The coach asks when the behaviour usually happens, where, and what comes just before it, so that the cue is identified.
  3. Together you make the first version small enough to do even on a poor day.
  4. You write an if-then plan in your own words, for example: if the kettle goes on, then I do the first step at the counter.
  5. You agree how you will notice whether the behaviour is becoming automatic, such as doing it without deciding to, and what you will change if it stalls.
  6. At the next session you review the record together and decide whether to keep the cue, shrink the step or change the setting.

When it tends to fit

  • You keep meaning to do something every day, and it only happens when you remember.
  • You have started a new routine and want to know what will make it last beyond the first few weeks.
  • A habit you do not want has a clear trigger, such as a room, a time or a feeling, and you want to change what happens after the trigger.

What the research shows

Evidence: Some peer-reviewed studies

Several peer-reviewed studies bear on the parts of this approach, but none tests habit science coaching as a whole. Lally and colleagues followed 96 volunteers, 82 of whom provided usable data, who repeated a chosen eating, drinking or activity behaviour daily for 12 weeks. Automaticity was modelled as a curve for each person, and the time taken to reach near its ceiling varied widely (Lally et al., 2010). Wood and colleagues treat habits as context-cued responses (Wood, Quinn & Kashy, 2002; Wood & Neal, 2007; Wood & Rünger, 2016). A meta-analysis of experimental studies asked whether changing intentions alone changes behaviour (Webb & Sheeran, 2006), and a second meta-analysis examined implementation intentions and goal achievement (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). An article in the British Journal of General Practice considers how habit-formation psychology applies to health (Gardner, Lally & Wardle, 2012).

Where the evidence is thin: Most of this research is about how habits form and change, not about coaching as a delivery format, and no controlled trial of a habit-science coaching programme turned up in the searches for this page. The Lally study tracked 96 volunteers who chose their own behaviours, and its automaticity scores are self-reported. Fogg's paper describes a design model, so it is a framework rather than a tested coaching method.

Sources

  1. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.
  2. Wood, W., Quinn, J. M., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). Habits in everyday life: Thought, emotion, and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1281–1297.
  3. Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289–314.
  4. Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863.
  5. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.
  6. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta‐analysis of Effects and Processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
  7. Gardner, B., Lally, P., & Wardle, J. (2012). Making health habitual: the psychology of ‘habit-formation’ and general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 62(605), 664–666.
  8. Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology, 1–7.

Where it stops

Habit-building is slow, and the research describes a wide range of times to automaticity. Expecting a habit to form in a set number of weeks can turn one missed day into a reason to stop, so the coach should treat the record as information, not as a verdict.

Habit work does not explain why a behaviour is harmful or why it is being used to cope with distress. Compulsive patterns, substance use, or behaviour that is hurting your health or safety need a qualified professional, and so does a routine that is a way of managing trauma or low mood that is not lifting.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice