Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Automaticity in goal striving

Automaticity in goal striving:
How do habits and environmental cues drive unconscious goal pursuit?

Overview

Figure 1. Oscar Piastri, Australian F1 driver Imagine this ... Oscar Piastri is racing in the Australian Grand Prix (see Figure 1). He adjusts his speed, turns around the corners elegantly, and reacts to his fellow drivers so he wouldn't crash into them. He then goes on to win the prix by split second decisions. Oscar is a creature of habits only F1 drivers have and can do them automatically.

The skills Oscar (see Figure 1) possesses are cognitively complex, as the human mind has only a limited amount of resources. To avoid being overwhelmed, Oscar practices these skills until they are second nature (Haith & Krakauer, 2018). This is called automaticity. Automaticity frees up the cognitive resources needed to make conscious decisions (Alister et al., 2024).

Automaticity is defined as practising tasks until strong habits are formed and can be completed unconsciously (Keatley et al., 2015). This reduces cognitive overload, improves performance, and helps people achieve their goals. In Oscar's case, winning a Grand Prix. Automaticity has four components (Stojanovic et al., 2022):

• Awareness: People not being conscious of the mental processes that are occurring
• Intentionality: People may not deliberately commence a mental process
• Efficiency: Automatic mental processes which use little cognitive resources
• Controllability: People may not be able to stop a process once it commences

Focus questions What is the relationship between automaticity and cognitive load theory? What is the relationship between automaticity and habits? What is the relationship between automaticity and practice? What is the relationship between automaticity and dual process theory?

Theories

In order to understand how automaticity is linked to goal directed behaviour, we must have a theoretical framework to conceptually understand it. I have selected two theories that I deem the most relevant: dual process theory and cognitive load theory. Dual process theory will be discussed first, followed by cognitive load theory.

Dual Process Theory

Dual process theory states that human cognition is comprised of two systems (Bellini-Leite, 2022). System 1 consists of intuition; unconscious thoughts and decisions delivered in a fast and automatic manner, which are crystallised by habits (Ding et al., 2024) (Fabio et al., 2019). System 2 consists of reasoning; conscious thoughts and decisions delivered in a slower and deliberate manner.

Both system 1 and 2 are needed for automaticity to occur, as unconscious habits are formed by thoughtful practice and awareness (Fabio et al., 2019). This makes dual process theory excellent in explaining how automaticity helps people achieve their goals (Gronchi et al., 2024).

Automaticity relies on information being connected to other information (Houlihan, 2018) (Gardner et al., 2022). Strong habits derived from automaticity cannot work when information is isolated (MCMANUS & MARSDEN, 2018). It is like how jigsaw pieces fit together and form the full picture. Linking ideas to prior knowledge is also known as the priming effect. Both system 1 and 2 are strengthened by priming.

System 1 and system 2 help explain how automaticity is built from cues and context (Labrecque et al., 2023). They also conceptualise how practice strengthens the connection between cues and context (Haith & Krakauer, 2018) (MCMANUS & MARSDEN, 2018). Like a muscle, automaticity needs to be trained.

People think both consciously and unconsciously. Dual process theory categorises both types of thinking by system 1 and system 2. System 1 encompasses unconscious thinking. System 2 encompasses conscious thinking. Both systems help explain how automaticity occurs.

Cognitive Load Theory

Cognitive load theory states that working memory has a limited capacity for processing information (Ding et al., 2024). This means that humans cannot encode information like computers, so more manageable chunks are necessary for information to stick.

However, encoding information is not sufficient by itself. People need to understand how information relates to other information (Labrecque et al., 2023). Humans achieve this by creating a schema; a framework that organises information and makes the relationships between them clear (Ding et al., 2024).

When learning something new, people need a schema to help them understand the process of a task. This includes driving a car, analysing data, or solving mathematical problems. Instructors give beginners a step by step process to help alleviate cognitive overload (Manikya Alister et al., 2024). This is known as the worked example effect.

This explains why automaticity is possible, as practising exercises in smaller blocks with a schema allow them to become second nature over time (Haith & Krakauer, 2018). Consequently, this frees up cognitive resources when performing complex tasks Manikya Alister et al. (2024).

People make countless decisions everyday, both consciously and unconsciously. This includes decisions that help people achieve their goals (Evans et al., 2024) (MCMANUS & MARSDEN, 2018). However, in order for that to happen, people must learn how to make these decisions properly. Cues and context create a foundation for decisions to happen. Cognitive load theory explains this process elegantly.

Research

Like other theories, cognitive load theory and dual process theory need to be tested. This section is divided into three parts: environment, dual process theory, and cognitive load theory. Each part will provide studies relevant to automaticity.

Environment

Cues

• A study by Stojanovic et al. (2022) found that the context of a cue needs to be stable in order for the habit to form
• (Labrecque et al., 2023) (MCMANUS & MARSDEN, 2018) (Haith & Krakauer, 2018) found that consistent practice strengthens the cue associated context for the given habit
• A systematic review by Gardner et al. (2022) confirmed that cues are context associated

The Unconscious

• (Manikya Alister et al., 2024) (Labrecque et al., 2023) found that unconscious processes information needed for automaticity
• (Keatley et al., 2015) (Labrecque et al., 2023) found that the unconscious relies on implicit memory for automaticity to form
• (Stojanovic & Wood, 2024) (Haith & Krakauer, 2018) found that the unconscious does automatic tasks simultaneously

Dual Process Theory

• A study by Bellini-Leite (2022) found that T1 and T2 systems of thinking are robust explanations for the cognitive limitations of humans and their bounded rationality
• A study by Fabio et al. (2019) found that dual process theory adequately explains the cue-context association of habit formation, thereby leading to automaticity
• A meta-analysis by Gronchi et al. (2024) found neurological evidence for system 1 and system 2 thinking processes
• A systematic review by Houlihan (2018) confirmed that dual process theory adequately describes behaviour through internal cues, physical cues, and habits
• A study by Petracca (2020) found that the sensory motor system plays a significant role in system 1 and system 2 thinking

Cognitive Load Theory

• A study by Haith and Krakauer (2018) found that cues help reduce cognitive overload when forming habits
• A study by Ding et al. (2024) found that automaticity reduces cognitive overload
• A study by Manikya Alister et al. (2024) found that cognitive load theory explains how limited cognitive resources are used when achieving your goals
• A study by Evans et al. (2024) found that reduced cognitive load helps strengthen motivation in reaching your goals

Integration

Cognitive load theory and dual process theory are shown to be robust. This means that both are reliable frameworks in explaining the different sides of automaticity. Cognitive load theory explains how automaticity is learned. Dual process theory explains the process of automaticity. Both help people see the bigger picture.

Both theories also have strong relationships with habits. Automaticity is derived from strong habits. For habits to be formed, cues and context must be aligned. Cognitive load theory explains how cognitive resources are used in cues and context. Dual process theory explains the inner workings of cues and contexts.

Given the robust empirical support, both theories can be used for future research on automaticity. Consequently, both theories can be expanded upon and applied in different situtations. This allows for big breakthroughs in the research literature. Finally, researchers can use these models to communicate their findings to the general public.

Learning features

Quizzes

1

Automaticity relies on conscious decisions:

	True
	False

2

Cues and context are necessary components for habits to form:

	True
	False

Conclusion

Automaticity has robust relationships with practice, habits, cognitive overload, and system 1 and 2 thinking processes. These relationships help people unconsciously build automaticity and achieve their goals. Behaviour is the one element that ties all these relationships together. The current state of the research literature confirms the robustness of these relationships.

Suggestions for this section: What is the answer to the sub-title question based on psychological theory and research? What are the answers to the focus questions? What are the practical, take-home messages? (Even for the topic development, have a go at the likely take-home message)

See also

• Automaticity (Wikipedia)
• Cognitive Load Theory (Wikipedia)
• Dual Process Theory (Wikipedia)
• Habit (Wikipedia)
• Practice (Wikipedia)
• Behavioural automaticity (Book chapter, 2018)

References

Bellini-Leite, S. C. (2022). Dual Process Theory: Embodied and Predictive; Symbolic and Classical. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(13). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.805386

Ding, Y., Wang, Q., Liu, R.-D., Trimm, J., Wang, J., Feng, S., Hong, W., & Yang, X.-T. (2024). Working Memory Load, Automaticity, and Problem Solving in College Engineering Students: Two Applications. SAGE Open, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241305082

Evans, P., Vansteenkiste, M., Parker, P. D., Kingsford-Smith, A., & Zhou, S. (2024). Cognitive Load Theory and Its Relationships with Motivation: a Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2

Fabio, R. A., Caprì, T., & Romano, M. (2019). From Controlled to Automatic Processes and Back Again: The Role of Contextual Features. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 15(4), 773–788. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v15i4.1746 Gardner, B., Rebar, A. L., & Lally, P. (2022). How does habit form? Guidelines for tracking real-world habit formation. Cogent Psychology, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2022.2041277

Gronchi, G., Gavazzi, G., Viggiano, M. P., & Giovannelli, F. (2024). Dual-Process Theory of Thought and Inhibitory Control: An ALE Meta-Analysis. Brain Sciences, 14(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14010101

Haith, A. M., & Krakauer, J. W. (2018). The multiple effects of practice: skill, habit and reduced cognitive load. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20(1), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.015 Houlihan, S. (2018). Dual-process models of health-related behaviour and cognition: a review of theory. Public Health, 156, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.11.002

Keatley, D. A., Chan, D. K. C., Caudwell, K., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). A consideration of what is meant by automaticity and better ways to measure it. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01537 Labrecque, J. S., Lee, K. M., & Wood, W. (2023). Measuring context–response associations that drive habits. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 121(1), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.893

Manikya Alister, Herbert, S. L., Sewell, D. K., Neal, A., & Ballard, T. (2024). The impact of cognitive resource constraints on goal prioritization. Cognitive Psychology, 148, 101618–101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2023.101618

MCMANUS, K., & MARSDEN, E. (2018). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716418000553

Petracca, E. (2020). Two and a half systems: The sensory-motor system in dual-process judgment and decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000113

Stojanovic, M., Grund, A., & Fries, S. (2022). Context Stability in Habit Building Increases Automaticity and Goal Attainment. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.883795

Stojanovic, M., & Wood, W. (2024). Beyond Deliberate Self-Control: Habits Automatically Achieve Long-Term Goals. Current Opinion in Psychology, 60, 101880–101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101880

External links

• Automaticity- Why we act without thinking (verywell mind)
• Automaticity—Supercharge Your Brain Today in 4 Easy Steps (psychology today)