Reasons to Remain Critical About the Literature on Habits: A Commentary on Wood et al.
[abstract only; full text not retrieved, 2026-10-20] De Houwer, J., Buabang, E. K., Boddez, Y., Koster, M., & Moors, A. (2023). 'Reasons to Remain Critical About the Literature on Habits: A Commentary on Wood et al. (2022).' Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 871-875. doi:10.1177/17456916221131508. Published online 10 November 2022. the published criticism, searched for rather than assumed, and the anchor of the two-sides section. THEIR CASE, verbatim: 'Wood et al. (2022) reviewed arguments in support of the idea that much of human behavior is habitual. In this commentary, we first point at ambiguities in the way Wood et al. referred to habits. This allows us to clarify the question that lies at the core of the debate on habits: To what extent is habitual behavior mediated by stimulus-response associations or by goal representations? We then argue that Wood et al. dismissed goal-directed explanations of habitual behavior too easily. Finally, we point out that Wood et al.'s reanalysis of our data is misleading in that a more fine-grained analysis supports rather than questions goal-directed accounts.' THE PAPER BEING ANSWERED: Wood, W., Mazar, A., & Neal, D. T. (2022), 'Habits and Goals in Human Behavior: Separate but Interacting Systems,' Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 590-605, doi:10.1177/1745691621994226 [NOT READ beyond the author's own one-line summary of it on her publications page, and
[abstract only; full text not retrieved, 2026-10-20] De Houwer, J., Buabang, E. K., Boddez, Y., Koster, M., & Moors, A. (2023). 'Reasons to Remain Critical About the Literature on Habits: A Commentary on Wood et al. (2022).' Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 871-875. doi:10.1177/17456916221131508. Published online 10 November 2022. the published criticism, searched for rather than assumed, and the anchor of the two-sides section. THEIR CASE, verbatim: 'Wood et al. (2022) reviewed arguments in support of the idea that much of human behavior is habitual. In this commentary, we first point at ambiguities in the way Wood et al. referred to habits. This allows us to clarify the question that lies at the core of the debate on habits: To what extent is habitual behavior mediated by stimulus-response associations or by goal representations? We then argue that Wood et al. dismissed goal-directed explanations of habitual behavior too easily. Finally, we point out that Wood et al.'s reanalysis of our data is misleading in that a more fine-grained analysis supports rather than questions goal-directed accounts.' THE PAPER BEING ANSWERED: Wood, W., Mazar, A., & Neal, D. T. (2022), 'Habits and Goals in Human Behavior: Separate but Interacting Systems,' Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(2), 590-605, doi:10.1177/1745691621994226 [NOT READ beyond the author's own one-line summary of it on her publications page, and
Written from the abstract only; full text not retrieved, 2026-10-20.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
De Houwer, J., Buabang, E. K., Boddez, Y., Koster, M., & Moors, A. (2023). 'Reasons to Remain Critical About the Literature on Habits: A Commentary on Wood et al.