Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging PDF

Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 1: Goal-Striving and Self-Regulation Processes by Diefendorff Category Theory Core Idea Key Features Guide thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and Though...

Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 1: Goal-Striving and Self-Regulation Processes by Diefendorff Category Theory Core Idea Key Features Guide thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and Thought (focus on goals), Affect (emotion management), Behavior Definition Self-Regulation attention to align with goals. (consistent actions), Attention (distraction removal). Negative feedback loop: Standard → Input → Comparator → Output. Control Theory (CT) Discrepancy reduction Hierarchical goals. Adjust effort based on feedback. Structural Theories Social Cognitive Theory Cyclical feedback loop. Focus on setting new, challenging goals beyond Discrepancy production (SCT) current performance levels. 1. Goal Setting: Feasibility and desirability. 2. Goal Striving: Actions Lewin’s Two Phases Goal Setting & Striving toward goals. Zimmerman’s Three 1. Forethought (planning), 2. Performance (execution), 3. Reflection Forethought, Performance, Reflection Phases (evaluation). Phase Theories Gollwitzer’s Four Goal Establishment to Revision 1. Goal Establishment, 2. Planning, 3. Goal Striving, 4. Goal Revision. Phases 1. Goal selection, 2. Cognition (strategy), 3. Maintenance, 4. Karoly’s Five Phases Adds strategy and goal adjustment Reprioritization, 5. Termination. Self-Determination Basic needs: Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness. Intrinsic (enjoyment), Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation Theory (SDT) Extrinsic (external rewards or pressures). Content Regulatory Focus Promotion: Growth, optimistic. Prevention: Responsibility, cautious. Promotion vs. Prevention Focus Theories Theory Affects motivation and emotions. LGO: Mastery focus. PGO: Demonstrating competence. Subtypes: Goal Orientation Theory Learning vs. Performance Goals Approach (prove) and Avoidance (avoid failure). Page 1 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Introduction to Self-Regulation Definition: Self-regulation is the capacity to guide own activities over time and across different circumstances to align with preferred standards (e.g., goals). It includes the modulation of thought, affect, behavior, or attention via deliberate or automated use of specific mechanisms and metaskills. Example: Student who is preparing for final exams. To effectively self-regulate their study process, they use deliberate control by setting a study schedule (conscious regulation). They decide to study two hours each evening, which is their deliberate plan. However, they also rely on automatic processes, like associating certain times of the day with studying, where their mind is "primed" to focus better during those hours (unconscious regulation). In this case, regulation involves: o Modulation of Thought: The student consciously redirects their thoughts to focus on their goals (passing the exams) whenever they get distracted. o Modulation of Affect (emotions): They manage feelings of anxiety by taking breaks and practicing deep breathing. o Behavior: They engage in study sessions consistently. o Attention: They use attention-focusing techniques like removing distractions (phone on airplane mode) to sustain focus during study sessions. Relevance: Self-regulation is crucial in work settings; especially as modern organizations give individuals more responsibility to manage their own tasks. Page 2 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Taxonomy of Self-Regulation Theories Structural Theories – Control Theory and Social Cognitive Theory Focuses on how self-regulation works & how people set, follow and adjust their goals using feedback, without focusing on the nature of the goal itself. Control Theory (CT): This theory describes self-regulation as a process of reducing discrepancies between current behaviour and a desired state (goal) using negative feedback loop. 4 components of negative feedback loop: standard (goal), input (perception of performance), comparator and output (change in behaviour). For instance, if a salesperson falls short of their sales target (goal), they receive feedback (discrepancy) and adjust their behaviour (e.g., putting in more effort) to achieve the goal. Decrease effort if positive feedback and increase effort if negative feedback; no changes in behaviour if there is no perceived difference. Theory assumes a hierarchical structuring of goals with short-term goals lower in the hierarchy and long-term, abstract goals higher in the hierarchy. Lower-level goals can be thought of as strategies to attain higher-level goals; several subgoals to meet one big goal. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT): SCT, similar to CT, describes self-regulation as a cyclical process involving setting goals, receiving feedback, and making adjustments to reach desired outcomes. It also emphasizes discrepancy production/creation—setting higher, challenging goals beyond current performance levels. Key difference between CT & SCT: CT emphasizes discrepancy reduction (striving to reach one’s goals) while SCT emphasizes discrepancy production (setting new goals that are higher than one’s last performance). Page 3 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Aspect Control Theory (CT) Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) Focus Discrepancy reduction Discrepancy production Self-Regulation Process Reducing gaps between Setting challenging goals current behaviour and goals beyond current performance Goal Adjustment Emphasizes reaching the set Emphasizes setting new, goal (reducing discrepancy) higher goals (creating discrepancy) Feedback Loop Type Negative feedback loop Cyclical feedback loop Adjustment Mechanism Adjusts effort based on Continues to adjust by setting feedback: increase effort for higher, challenging goals negative feedback, decrease irrespective of progress for positive feedback Hierarchy of Goals Hierarchical structure with Not explicitly hierarchical, but short-term goals leading to acknowledges the importance long-term goals of challenging goals Goal Type Focus on reducing the gap to Focus on surpassing previous achieve specific goals performance with higher goals Feedback Focus Feedback is used to measure Feedback used to measure discrepancy between the progress and inspire new, current state and the goal more challenging goals Phase Theories (Lewin, Zimmerman, Gollwitzer & Karoly) Theories that describe the distinct stages or steps individuals go through in the process of goal pursuit and self-regulation. Theory Phases Lewin's Two Phases 1. Goal Setting: Selecting goal based on feasibility and desirability. 2. Goal Striving: Engaging in activities to achieve set goals. Zimmerman’s Three 1. Forethought: Lewin’s goal setting. Phases 2. Performance: Lewin’s goal-striving. 3. Self-Reflection: evaluation of performance. Gollwitzer's Four Phases 1. Goal Establishment: Deliberating selecting the goal based on (MOST COMMON) feasibility. 2. Planning: Developing strategies to achieve the goal. 3. Goal Striving: Performing actions to pursue the goal. 4. Goal Revision: Reviewing outcomes to refine future goals. Karoly’s Five Phases of 1. Goal selection Self-Regulation 2. Goal cognition 3. Directional maintenance 4. Directional change/reprioritization 5. Goal termination Approach adds a planning and strategy phase (2); divides self-reflection phase into goal revision (4) and goal attainment (5). Page 4 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Content Theories – Self-Determination Theory, Regulatory Focus Theory and Goal Orientation Theory Theories that focuses on the types, nature and motivation behind the goals that individuals pursue, and how these different goal contents impact their behavior and quality of self-regulation. Self-Determination Theory: focuses on the role of basic human needs in driving behavior and distinguishes among intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, as well as amotivation. Basic Psychological Needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness as the three fundamental needs that must be satisfied to foster intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic Motivation: Engaging in activities for internal interest and enjoyment (e.g., learn a language because you want to understand a culture better). Extrinsic Motivation: Driven by rewards, pressures and punishments (e.g., learning a language so that you find a job and don’t get kicked out of the country). Further breakdown in types of extrinsic motivation, as some types are more internalized than others. 1. External motivation: no internalization of activity but rather the behavior is performed only because of external rewards and punishments (e.g., studying to get a good grade). 2. Introjected motivation: Behaviour motivated by internal pressures such as guilt or obligation (e.g., exercising to avoid feeling guilty). 3. Identified motivation: Behaviour that is motivated by recognition of its personal importance, even if it is not inherently enjoyable (e.g., attending a networking event to advance one’s career). 4. Integration motivation: The most internalized form of extrinsic motivation, where the behaviour aligns with one's values and sense of self (e.g., running a marathon because it aligns with a personal value of discipline and health). Individuals who pursue intrinsically motivated goal are more likely to sustain efforts, be adaptive in the face of challenges, and experience greater satisfaction. Pursuing extrinsic goals, especially those that are poorly internalized, can lead to stress, lower persistence, and lower well-being. For example, pursuing a goal just for external validation (like societal approval) may lead to anxiety and burnout. Regulatory Focus Theory: goals can be framed as promotion focused or prevention focused. Promotion Focus Prevention Focus Defined by Individuals seek to minimize differences Individuals seek to minimize differences between their actual and ideal selves between their actual and ought selves (e.g., hope, aspiration). (duties, responsibilities). Motivation Approach motivation. Avoidance motivation; avoiding losses. How they see See goals as opportunities for personal See goals as responsibilities. their goals growth. People Optimistic and risk-taking. Cautious and risk averse. characteristics Emotional When individuals succeed, they feel When individuals succeed, they feel Experiences happy. When they fail, they feel sad. relax. When they fail, they feel anxious. Framing tasks: Framing tasks as either promotion or prevention focused can impact the goals individuals select and how they regulate their behavior during goal pursuit. Page 5 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Goal Orientation Theory: Individuals’ attitudes towards goals can influence their behavior, effort, learning strategies, and overall success. Learning Goal Orientation (LGO) Performance Goal Orientation (PGO) Goals Mastery goals > focus on learning and Performance goals > demonstrate developing competence. competence to others. Ability Ability is changeable. Ability is fixed. Subtype Approach subtype: prove their competence and ability in comparison of others. Avoidance subtype: avoid displays of incompetence and negative judgment from others. Page 6 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 2: Attaining Self-Regulation: A Social Cognitive Perspective by Zimmerman Key Concepts and Theories Definition of Self-Regulation Self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adjusted to achieve goals. Feedback from prior performance adjusts current efforts, causing constant changes in personal, behavioral, and environmental Cyclical Nature factors. Personal: Self-efficacy, motivation, affective reactions (e.g., fear, doubts). Behavioral: Self-monitoring. Environmental: Triadic Interactions Observing and altering external conditions. Closed Loop: Reduces discrepancies between current state and static goals. Feedback Loops Open Loop: Proactively raises goals to increase discrepancies. Behavioral Self-Regulation: Observing and adjusting methods of learning. Three Open Feedback Loops Environmental Self-Regulation: Adjusting external conditions. Covert Self-Regulation: Adjusting cognitive and affective states. Forethought: Task analysis (goal setting, strategic planning) and self-motivation beliefs. Performance/Volitional Control: Self-control (e.g., instruction, imagery, focus) and self-observation (e.g., timely and Cyclical Phases of Self- accurate feedback). Regulation Self-Reflection: Self-judgment (criteria like mastery, previous performance, etc.) and self-reaction (e.g., satisfaction, adaptive inferences). Task Analysis: Goal setting (clear, hierarchical, proximal steps), strategic planning. Forethought Self-Motivation Beliefs: Self-efficacy, outcome expectations, intrinsic interest, mastery-oriented goal orientation. Self-Control: Self-instruction, imagery, focus, and task structuring. Performance/Volitional Control Self-Observation: Features include timeliness, accuracy, and valence of feedback. Self-Judgment: Evaluation using mastery, previous performance, normative, and collaborative criteria. Self-Reflection Self-Reaction: Positive affect (self-satisfaction), adaptive/defensive inferences. Page 7 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Introduction to Self-Regulation Definition – Social Cognitive Perspective: Self-regulation refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are intentionally planned and cyclically* adjusted to achieve personal goals. Cyclical nature: feedback from prior performance is used to adjust current efforts > causing personal, behavioral and environmental factors to constantly change. Triadic Interactions: Personal: self-efficacy (believing in capability), motivation and affective reaction (fear, doubts). Behavioral: self-monitoring. Environmental: observing and altering external conditions to improve outcomes. Feedback Loop Closed vs Open Loops Closed Loop: reducing discrepancies between current state and static goal. Open Loop: proactively increasing discrepancies by raising goals. Three Open Feedback Loops of the Social Cognitive Perspective Behavioral Self-Regulation: self- observing and strategically adjusting processes, such as one's method of learning. Environmental Self-Regulation: observing and adjusting environmental conditions. Covert Self-Regulation: observing and adjusting cognitive and affective states. All 3 feedback loops are open. Cyclical Phases of Self-Regulation from a Social Cognitive Perspective Three Cyclical Phases: Forethought, Performance/Volitional Control & Self-Reflection Forethought Consist of task analysis and self-motivation beliefs Task Analysis o Goal setting: developing clear, hierarchical goals > goals are proximal steps that help to increase self-efficacy and intrinsic interest. o Strategic planning: selecting methods to complete tasks. Page 8 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Self-Motivation Beliefs o Self-efficacy: belief in capability to achieve goals. o Outcome expectations o Intrinsic interest o Goal orientation: emphasizing mastery goal over competitive results. Performance/Volitional Control Consist of self-control and self-observation Self-Control o Self-instruction: verbal/mental guidance. o Imagery: visualizing success to improve performance. o Attention focusing eliminating distractions. o Task strategies: structure tasks into manageable parts Self-Observation o Key features influencing effectiveness: ▪ Timeliness: Immediate feedback allows for corrective actions. ▪ Accuracy: Reducing distortions to identify areas of improvement. ▪ Valence: Focusing on successes rather than failures to maintain motivation Self-Reflection Consist of self-judgement and self-reflection Self-Judgement o 4 distinctive types of criteria that people use to evaluate themselves: mastery, previous performance, normative and collaborative. ▪ Mastery criteria: progression toward expertise from novice to experienced. ▪ Previous performance: use as baseline. ▪ Normative criteria: social comparison. ▪ Collaborative criteria: use in team endeavors; concerns team role contributions. Self-Reaction o Self-Satisfaction: Positive affect strengthens motivation. o Adaptive Inferences: Adjusting strategies and goals for future success. o Defensive Inferences: Avoidance behaviors like procrastination or disengagement hinder progress. Page 9 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 3: Cybernetic Control Processes and the Self-Regulation of Behaviour by Carver Key Concepts and Theories Loop Components Input function, reference value, comparison process, output Types of Loops Negative (Discrepancy-Reducing) & Positive (Discrepancy- Enlarging) Active Avoidance Negative and positive loops work together to approach goals and avoid anti-goals simultaneously. Level of Abstractions Concrete goals, programs, principles and meta-value Feedback in Hierarchical High-level > principle guides direction; Mid-level > Actions programs operationalize principles; Low-level goals > sequences lead to programs. Affect as Feedback Positive affect > decrease effort; Negative affect > increase effort Two-Mode Systems Reflective (slower) and automatic (faster Page 10 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Basics of Control Theory Feedback Systems/Loops Core components: input function, reference value, comparison process, output o Input Function: Perception of current conditions. o Reference Value: The goal or desired state. o Comparison Process: Detects discrepancies between input and reference. o Output: Behavior or response to reduce or enlarge the discrepancy. Detecting Discrepancies If comparison detects no discrepancies > no change in output. If comparison detects discrepancies > change in output depending on what kind of loop it is. Types of Loops Discrepancy-Reducing/Negative Loop Output reduces discrepancies to achieve stability or maintain goals. Example: Homeostatic. Discrepancy-Enlarging/Positive Loop Output amplifies discrepancies, often towards anti-goals or conditions to avoid. Example: Moving away from feared scenarios (e.g., avoiding public humiliation). Interactions Between the Loops Active avoidance: discrepancy-reducing and discrepancy-enlarging loops work together to move towards a safe goal (approach) with distancing from an anti-goal (avoidance). Example: By focusing on preparation (approach goal), you naturally reduce the likelihood of failure (avoidance of the anti-goal), effectively managing both goals simultaneously. Level of Abstraction Goals exist at different abstraction levels (e.g., abstract goals like "be a good citizen" to specific subgoals like recycling). Concrete Goals: Specific, actionable tasks (e.g., recycling). Defined by brief action sequences, such as sorting recyclables or placing them in bins. Require minimum monitoring once triggered. Programs (many sequences) Strings of organized actions aimed at achieving broader objectives (e.g., reducing environmental impact through consistent recycling habits). Require planning and decision-making, adapting to situational conditions. With repetition, programs can become automatic sequences. Principles Abstract, guiding values that shape decisions and programs (e.g., a commitment to sustainability or ethical responsibility). Represent higher-level goals, influencing choices and aligning actions with values. Meta-Values (many principles) Page 11 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Complex patterns of principles that define a person's sense of self (e.g., being an ethical citizen) or vision for a desired community. Feedback in Hierarchical Actions High-level goals guide lower-level processes. Lower level operationalizes and execute higher-level intentions. A cascading system: o Low-Level: sequences execute the actions that runs programs. o Mid-Level: programs operationalize principles into actionable plans. o High-Level: principles set the direction. Example: A person aiming to be a good citizen (principle) might create a recycling plan (program), executed by daily sorting and disposal of waste (sequences). Hierarchy Example Principles Ethical values like fairness or generosity Programs Strategic plans, e.g., career development Sequences Motor tasks, e.g., writing or walking Affect as Feedback Emotions (positive and negative affect) signal goal progress or lack thereof and modulate effort intensity: Positive affect: can signal satisfactory, leading to “coasting”. o Coasting: phenomenon where an individual reduces effort or intensity in pursuing a goal because sufficient progress has been perceived. Negative affect: signals discrepancies, leading to increase effort or strategy change. Two-Mode Systems Reflective Mode: Goal-directed, deliberate, and reflective. Automatic Mode: Automatic, spontaneous and triggered by cues. These systems operate interactively, enabling both deliberate planning and quick adaptive responses. Page 12 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 4: The Theory and Practice of “Nudging”: Changing Health Behaviors by Ivo Vlaeve Key Concepts and Theories Nudge Theory Behavioural interventions that alter choice architecture to influence decisions without limiting choices or changing incentives. MINDSPACE Framework Messenger, incentive, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitment and ego. Dual-Process Model Reflective and automatic systems jointly influence decisions. Choice Architecture Altering decision-making environments to influence outcomes. Behavioral Change Technique Techniques tailored to behaviours driven by goals, habits, or (BCT) impulses. Ethics of Nudging Balancing autonomy and effectiveness. Page 13 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Nudging in Policy Nudge Theory: behavioural interventions that alter the choice architecture to influence decisions in predictable ways without limiting choices or changing economic incentives. Issues addressed: o Patient side: health behaviours like smoking, poor diet. o Provider-side: inefficiencies like overuse of expensive healthcare resources. Nudges leverage automatic psychological processes to steer decisions. They target System 1 thinking—intuitive, automatic, and unconscious processes—rather than System 2 thinking, which involves deliberate, logical reasoning. Behavioral Insights in Action: The Mindspace Framework Mindspace Framework: a summary of the automatic and contextual effects on behaviour that have been found in experimental settings in laboratory. MINDSPACE Description Brain Example Practical Use System Messenger We are Automatic Physicians are trusted Effective communication influenced by more than government in campaigns (e.g., who delivers the sources for health vaccination drives) message advice. Incentives Response to Automatic Financial penalties Incorporating behavioural incentives lead to motivate weight loss insights into incentive mental shortcuts more effectively than designs for adherence to like avoiding loss rewards treatments Norms We are Automatic Highlighting peer Social norms used to influenced by Habit behaviours increases reduce harmful drinking what others are adherence to hygiene or promote exercise doing practices Defaults Prefer presets Automatic Automatic enrolment in Set welfare-promoting organ donation defaults in healthcare programs increases settings participation Salience Novelty Habit HIV campaigns focusing Emphasize critical on specific high-risk information with clear behaviours decreased and direct messaging teen pregnancies significantly Priming Choices are Habit Exposure to fitness- Subtle environmental influenced by related words promotes changes to nudge health subconscious stair usage over behaviours (e.g., smaller cues elevators food portions) Affect Emotions Automatic Disgust-based Use emotional triggers campaigns increased (e.g., fear, guilt) to handwashing in Ghana motivate health changes Commitment Want to be Automatic Smoking cessation Create commitment consistent with Habit programs with financial devices (e.g., contracts public promises stakes increased for health goals) success rates Ego Act in ways that Automatic Negative stereotypes of Design campaigns make us feel smokers encourage promoting positive good about quitting. behaviours as status- ourselves enhancing Page 14 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Behavioral Change Mechanisms Dual-Process Model Both reflective and automatic systems jointly make decisions. Nudge primary targets automatic system. Choice Architecture Altering the environment where decisions are made influences outcomes. Examples include rearranging cafeteria items to promote healthy food choices. Behavior Change Technique (BCTs) Interventions based on whether behaviors are driven by goals, habits, or impulses. Reflective techniques (e.g., providing information) work alongside automatic techniques (e.g., defaults) for greater effectiveness. Ethical Considerations Debate on appropriate levels of government involvement in personal decisions. Policymakers must balance effectiveness with autonomy and public acceptability. Strategies to enhance legitimacy: o Engage the public in decision-making processes. o Ensure transparency in intervention goals and methods. Page 15 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 5: Unresolved questions in nudging research: Putting the psychology back in nudging by Marchiori Theoretical Foundation of Nudge Theory Key Features of Nudging Nudges target unconscious behaviours rather than conscious deliberation. Nudges should alter behaviour predictably without prohibiting options or making them significantly more costly (e.g., placing fruit at eye level is a nudge; banning junk food is not). Effective nudges typically align with the nudgee’s intrinsic goals. Dual Process Theories System 1 Thinking: Fast, automatic, heuristic-based System 2 Thinking: Slow, effortful, deliberative Nudging predominantly works by influencing System 1 Automaticity in Decision-Making Many behaviours are influenced by unconscious cues (e.g., smell, music, object placement People buy wine corresponding to the country of music played in stores. Choice Architecture: Structuring the environment to subtly guide decisions. Ethical Consideration: Transparency (should nudges be disclosed?) and Autonomy (do nudges preserve freedom of choice? Unresolved Questions in Nudging Transparency and Awareness Nudges are subtle rearrangement of choice architecture, but this subtlety has raised some concerns as nudging may not be ethical as it is designed to manipulate people’s decision. Research has shown that transparency DO NOT REDUCE effectiveness; enhance trust and informed decision-making. Third-Person Effect: People often believe others are influenced by nudges but deny being affected themselves. Determining Choice Sets in Nudging Nudging aims to guide choices without limiting options. Key considerations include: Options vs. Choices: Reducing the number of options (e.g., smaller tableware) can decrease decision complexity and anxiety while maintaining freedom of choice. Valorization: Nudges should emphasize the positive aspects of preferred options rather than devaluing alternatives to foster intrinsic motivation and satisfaction. Consequences of Nudging The long-term effects of nudging are uncertain. Potential outcomes include: Self-Licensing: Nudged behaviors might justify indulgence in contradictory behaviors later. Behavioral Spillover: Nudges could influence similar choices across contexts, reinforcing habits. Habit Formation: Pairing nudges with specific cues may create lasting behaviors, even after removing the intervention. Freedom of Choice Page 16 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Nudges must preserve freedom by avoiding coercion or making alternatives more costly. Psychological factors affecting perceived freedom include: Goal Alignment: Nudges aligned with individuals' goals enhance perceived autonomy. Misaligned nudges may undermine freedom. System 1 vs. System 2 Nudges: People prefer deliberate, transparent interventions (System 2) but accept intuitive nudges (System 1) if explained effectively. Page 17 of 18 Problem 1: Structure of Self-Regulation & Nudging Reading 6: When nudgees become nudgers: Exploring the use of self-nudging to promote fruit intake by Rookhuijzen Key Concepts Self-Nudging: A behavior-change strategy where individuals adjust their own choice architecture to meet goals (e.g., placing fruit in visible or accessible locations). Temporal Spillover Effect: The continuation of behaviour change after the intervention ends. Habit Formation: Developing automatic behaviours tied to cues in the environment. Methodology Participants: 331 individuals in the UK, working from home, and intending to increase fruit intake. Design: Random assignment to control or self-nudge condition. Self-nudging participants selected from six pre-defined strategies (e.g., placing fruit in visible locations, setting reminders). Duration: 9 weeks (8 weeks of intervention, 1-week spillover). Measures: Fruit intake and habit strength assessed six times, adherence to self-nudging tracked. Findings Immediate Effects: Self-nudging significantly increased fruit intake during the 8-week intervention. Habit strength grew more in the self-nudge group than in the control. Prolonged Effects: Mixed evidence for temporal spillover. While fruit intake remained high in the self-nudge group, the control group unexpectedly increased their intake during the spillover period, obscuring definitive conclusions. Habit Formation: Self-nudging promoted habit formation, but habit strength did not mediate temporal spillover, suggesting the behavior depended on the ongoing presence of the nudge. o Self-nudging can effectively build habits, these habits might not yet be strong enough to drive sustained behaviour change without continual reinforcement (the nudge). For habits to fully take hold, additional or prolonged interventions might be necessary. Page 18 of 18