Menu
Close
.svg)
Contemporary research into the science of habit degradation raises intriguing questions about how pharma companies can overcome the inertia of established prescribing and treatment behaviors.
Several months ago, I decided to stop drinking alcohol. Like many people, I had watched my consumption creep upwards during the pandemic, with what began as an occasional indulgence gradually becoming an ingrained part of my routine. Recently, I concluded that the benefits of drinking were increasingly outweighed by its disadvantages. And the results of abstinence have been palpable and gratifying: better sleep, greater mental clarity, more energy and a welcome improvement in productivity.
Yet, as I found, relinquishing a habit is considerably more difficult than deciding to do so. Just this past weekend, while attending a social gathering for my younger daughter's new school, I found myself standing near a well-stocked bar, surrounded by guests enjoying Old Fashioned's (which used to be my favorite, go-to cocktail). The luxurious aroma of bourbon, bitters and simple syrup was almost irresistible, evoking memories of countless convivial evenings. Although I had no intention of going back, I could still sense the tractor beam of a behavior that had been part of my life for decades.
The experience reminded me that our habits can retain a remarkable hold over us, even when we have consciously resolved to abandon them. It also prompted a question that seems particularly germane to those of us in pharma marketing and insight and analytics (I&A): if changing our minds about a behavior is insufficient to extinguish it, what does it actually take to break an established habit?
A fascinating study published in March 2026 in Communications Psychology, part of the Nature portfolio (https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-026-00432-9), offers some clues to address this question. Researchers at the University of Bern investigated what they term habit degradation, the process through which established behavioral patterns gradually weaken. In a 13-week randomized trial involving 313 participants, they examined three approaches to reducing unhealthy snacking: substituting a different behavior, consciously inhibiting the habitual response, and reducing access to the temptation itself.
The findings were intriguing, if not altogether conclusive. Participants employing these strategies experienced faster initial reductions in habit strength than those in the control group, particularly during the first week. However, the researchers found no compelling evidence that any one approach was superior, nor that the interventions produced greater overall reductions in habit strength over the study period. The research nevertheless reinforces an important distinction between changing a behavior temporarily and weakening the underlying associations that make it habitual.
That distinction is central to contemporary behavioral science. Habits are established through repeated associations between environmental or contextual cues and specific responses, eventually allowing behavior to proceed with relatively little conscious deliberation. The sight of a familiar bar, the end of a demanding workday, or the company of friends can summon an impulse long after our considered preferences have changed. In such circumstances, willpower must contend with years (or decades) of accumulated behavioral conditioning.
My own experience has involved something more than simply resisting temptation. I have intentionally sought to alter the value I attach to drinking, replacing associations of relaxation and pleasure with a more sober recognition of disrupted sleep, diminished concentration, heart palpitations, and other physical consequences of overindulgence. At the same time, I have become increasingly attentive to the rewards of abstinence, which have grown more tangible with each passing week. In effect, I have sought to render the old behavior less appealing while making its alternative more rewarding.
Another study, published in February 2026 in Psychology & Health, provides an interesting complement to my own experience. Examining habits involving alcohol, smoking, unhealthy snacking and sedentary behavior, researchers found that habit strength tended to be lower on days when participants refrained from their customary behavior and experienced greater rewards from doing so. Although observational rather than experimental, the findings suggest that repeatedly foregoing a habitual response, while discovering satisfaction in the alternative, may help loosen its grip.
There is an important subtlety here. The objective is not necessarily to eliminate temptation through an act of heroic self-discipline, but to diminish the appeal and automaticity of the old behavior while gradually establishing a more attractive replacement. Such changes may be incremental, uneven and highly dependent upon individual circumstances. Nevertheless, they offer an intriguing perspective on why some behavior transformations endure while others prove ephemeral.
Consider the physician who has prescribed the same treatment for years. The incumbent therapy is familiar, its clinical characteristics well understood, and its administration and interactions profile comfortably embedded in established practice routines. A new medicine arrives offering meaningful advantages, supported by compelling clinical evidence and an increasingly persuasive commercial narrative. The physician acknowledges these benefits, expresses enthusiasm for the innovation and may even declare an intention to prescribe it. Yet months later, little has changed.
Pharma teams frequently interpret such inertia as a failure of persuasion, responding with further clinical evidence, a sharper positioning and/or more intensive promotional activity. But perhaps the more formidable obstacle is not the physician's understanding of the new treatment, but the accumulated familiarity and practical rewards associated with the old habit. Changing prescribing behavior may therefore require something more fundamental than demonstrating therapeutic superiority: a deliberate effort to weaken the routines that sustain the incumbent approach.
For those of us in I&A, this suggests a different set of questions. Rather than concentrating exclusively on perceptions, preferences and prescribing intentions, we might investigate the environmental cues, institutional routines and psychological rewards that perpetuate established treatment behaviors. We might also explore which circumstances make physicians receptive to reconsidering familiar practices, and how early experiences with an alternative treatment can reinforce a new pattern of behavior. Such lines of inquiry, which we've implemented as part of our Habit Lens methodology, have proven particularly valuable when innovations demand meaningful changes in clinical workflows, patient management or multidisciplinary coordination.
Of course, prescribing decisions cannot be equated with choosing a cocktail or pushing away an afternoon biscuit. Clinical evidence, patient welfare and professional judgement must remain paramount, and not every established treatment practice constitutes a habit. Nevertheless, the parallels are sufficiently provocative to warrant greater attention.
In pharmaceutical marketing, we tend to judge the effectiveness of our efforts by their ability to influence physicians' attitudes and prescribing behaviors. Yet there is something faintly paradoxical about our preoccupation with persuasion. A physician may be thoroughly convinced of a new treatment's merits and still revert, almost reflexively, to the therapeutic choices of yesterday. The impediment may have little to do with the quality of the clinical evidence or the persuasiveness of our messaging, and considerably more to do with the tenacity of established routines.
For those of us engaged in PMR, this continues to present an intriguing challenge. We are adept at investigating what might encourage physicians to embrace a new treatment, but arguably less accomplished at discerning what keeps them tethered to an existing one. The emerging science of habit degradation offers a different lens through which to examine this conundrum, directing our attention towards the cues, rewards and routines that sustain familiar prescribing behaviors. Ultimately, convincing a physician that a different course of action is preferable and enabling that physician to abandon an established practice are two quite different propositions.
