Charles Duhigg has three fascinating half-books here. They’re all joined by the theme of habits. He speaks of habits from a personal perspective. Then he talks about business habits, switching from cognitive psychology to organizational psychology. And finally, he talks about sociology.

What unifying pattern do these three have? That same old model I learned back in college in 1991… The idea of cues, actions, and rewards is throughout this book. It’s not very new nor very strong; in fact, Duhigg mentions that Claude Hopkins in his My Life in Advertising book first discussed this old, flimsy dusty model in 1927.

So why does this book get 3 stars? Because Duhigg does find several fascinating stories about each section. He uses examples from AA attendees to overeaters to Target figuring out which person is pregnant and sending out the right kind of advertising without offending the person. This is some cool stuff, great fodder for cocktail conversations – scary in sort of a Big Brother way. (“We do not control ourselves!”)

Duhigg could’ve made this book better, though. He says there isn’t enough research to say why some habits prevail and others are changeable. Why write a book then? Is this only a compendium of the most recent research? If it is, it misses some significant stuff. There are plenty of other sources he could’ve used as possible models. Malcolm Gladwell talks about how sociological influences because ubiquitous - social habit - in The Tipping Point (2000). Chip and Dan Heath talk about how to change when change is difficult in Switch (2007). I can also think of several other authors who’ve given more succinct processes to take the models and attempt to make them more useable. Duhigg seemed too scared to commit to some possibilities, some clear ways to influence the change of habit. He skirts it, and then he excuses himself, saying that habits are too multifaceted to offer possible models in detail.

So his models are vague or old. He also doesn’t credit or discredit Gladwell or the Heaths or others who have had recent bestsellers talking about the same ideas. Then he writes three half-books that are barely bridged to each other. Still, his examples are good, and his style is infinitely readable. I would’ve liked to have him commit to some postulation that is more recent than Hopkins’ 1927 model. I also wish his bridge between the personal, organizational, and social was stronger.