Reasons to Remain Critical About the Literature on Habits: A Commentary on Wood et al. (2022)

Abstract

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.