No abstract

Habits are repetitive behaviors that become ingrained with practice, routine, and repetition. The more we repeat an action, the stronger our habits become. Behavioral and clinical neuroscientists have become increasingly interested in this topic because habits may contribute to aspects of maladaptive human behavior, such as compulsive behavior in psychiatry. Numerous studies have demonstrated that habits can be induced in otherwise healthy rats by simply overtraining stimulus–response behaviors. However, despite growing interest in this topic and its application to psychiatry, a similar body of work in humans is absent. Only a single study has been published in humans that shows the effect of extensive training on habit expression. Here, we report five failed attempts to demonstrate that overtraining instrumental behavior leads to the development of inflexible habits in humans, using variants of four previously published outcome devaluation paradigms. Extensive training did not lead to greater habits in two versions of an avoidance learning task, in an appetitive slips-of-action task, or in two independent attempts to replicate the original demonstration. The finding that these outcome devaluation procedures may be insensitive to duration of stimulus-response training in humans has implications for prior work in psychiatric populations. Specifically, it converges with the suggestion that the failures in outcome devaluation in compulsive individuals reflect dysfunction in goal-directed control, rather than overactive habit learning. We discuss why habits are difficult to experimentally induce in healthy humans, and the implications of this for future research in healthy and disordered populations.

This is the first study to establish the performance of administrative data in measuring mental health service provision in a primary care setting. In our setting, broadly defined administrative measures of mental health have excellent specificity and adequate sensitivity for exploring and understanding mental health service utilization.

Purpose Physical distancing measures to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus have presented challenges for the mental health and well-being of college students. As campus activities ceased, student-athletes abruptly became isolated from teammates and were no longer able to participate in sport activities that are often central to their identity as an athlete. However, student-athletes who have supportive social connections with teammates during this pandemic may maintain their athletic identity to a greater extent and report better mental health. The present study examined how student-athletes’ mental health was associated with teammate social support, connectedness, and changes to athletic identity from before to during COVID-19. Method A sample of 234 student-athletes completed surveys before COVID-19 physical distancing (February 2020), with 135 (63% female) participating in a follow-up in the month following school closures (April 2020). Path models estimated the effects of teammate social support and connectedness (during COVID-19), as well as changes in athletic identity on indices of mental health. Results Considering all path models tested, student-athletes who received more social support and reported more connectedness with teammates reported less dissolution of their athletic identity and—in most models—reported better mental health and well-being. Indirect effects indicated that student-athletes’ change in athletic identity mediated the effects of teammate social support on psychological well-being and depression symptoms. Conclusions In addition to advancing theory on how small groups relate to mental health, these findings demonstrate the value in remaining socially connected with peers and maintaining role identities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract