The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index
[NOT READ; bibliographic record only, and the letter is citable for its existence and may not be quoted] Sniehotta, F. F., & Presseau, J. (2012). 'The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index.' Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 139-140. Published online September 2011. Paired with the reply, Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Lally, P., & de Bruijn, G.-J. (2012), ''The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index': A Reply,' Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 141-142 [NOT READ, bibliographic record only, Gardner first, citable for existence and worth naming because it shows the field answered], and with the instrument itself, Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003), 'Reflections on Past Behavior: A Self-Report Index of Habit Strength,' Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313-1330 [NOT READ, bibliographic record only, Verplanken first, citable for existence]. THE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE DOES NOT DEPEND ON THESE UNREAD SOURCES: it is carried by two sources read in full, Neal and colleagues 2012 on the r = .54 against r = .07 dissociation and their statement that judgments cannot test mechanisms, and Hagger and colleagues 2023 on frequency items inflating habit-behaviour effects.
[NOT READ; bibliographic record only, and the letter is citable for its existence and may not be quoted] Sniehotta, F. F., & Presseau, J. (2012). 'The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index.' Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 139-140. Published online September 2011. Paired with the reply, Gardner, B., Abraham, C., Lally, P., & de Bruijn, G.-J. (2012), ''The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index': A Reply,' Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 141-142 [NOT READ, bibliographic record only, Gardner first, citable for existence and worth naming because it shows the field answered], and with the instrument itself, Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2003), 'Reflections on Past Behavior: A Self-Report Index of Habit Strength,' Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1313-1330 [NOT READ, bibliographic record only, Verplanken first, citable for existence]. THE MEASUREMENT CRITIQUE DOES NOT DEPEND ON THESE UNREAD SOURCES: it is carried by two sources read in full, Neal and colleagues 2012 on the r = .54 against r = .07 dissociation and their statement that judgments cannot test mechanisms, and Hagger and colleagues 2023 on frequency items inflating habit-behaviour effects.
Written from the nOT READ; bibliographic record only, and the letter is citable for its existence and may not be quoted.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Sniehotta, F. F., & Presseau, J. (2012). The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 139-140.