Here we are, in the first week of a new year.
Tis the season for new diets, financial budgeting and house-cleaning agendas, but is there really any point to New Year’s resolutions? Do they ever last?
Half of New Year’s resolutions fail, with ¹∕3 not even surviving until February.
However, science writer Katherine L. Milkman points out that new habits only take one month to form, so for those of us who can make it to the four-week mark, the possibility of real change could be afoot.
While many of us meet the idea of making a resolution with a world-weary groan, let us not chalk that negativity up to mere cynicism: there is a science behind why resolutions tend to fail.
There is the nature of the New Year itself, an arbitrary date significant only to the calendar, not to real life.
As Dr. Noam Shpancer wrote in Psychology Today, “New Year’s Eve is a generic cultural marker, helpful in noting the passage of time and the cyclical nature of things, but lacking, for most people, any deep personal resonance.”
According to science writer Jennifer A. Miller, resolutions also fail for three other reasons in addition to the arbitrary nature of the New Year.
If a resolution is based on society’s expectations or the expectations of others, it is not likely to survive. Simply put, the change has to be something that you really want.
Vague resolutions are also bound to fail. For example, “I will get back in shape” is not a specific goal, but “I will lose five pounds by June” is targeted and, therefore, much more likely to succeed. The final reason that resolutions fade into oblivion is a lack of planning. A specific goal – such as losing five pounds by June – is an achievable, rational goal, but how will you make it happen?
Strategy is good, but tactics are necessary, too. “I will keep a food journal, walk my dogs every day, and eat a brown-bag lunch rather than fast food,” will get you a lot farther than just having a target six months down the road.
For many people, setting a goal is more effective than making a resolution. The cultural weight of New Year’s resolutions is enough to doom some enterprises from the start. Instead, choose a goal that is doable and make a step-by-step plan.
Even with goal-making, people tend to be overly-optimistic and ambitious. Maybe you do need to lose 40 pounds this year, but that is a lofty goal, the kind that tends to overwhelm. By choosing a more humble target, such as losing that five pounds by June, you are more likely to take the small steps that actually lead to success.
Health columnist Jen A. Miller recommends that those looking to make long-term changes follow the SMART system. Goals should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound.
So the goal of losing five pounds is much more specific than “losing weight” or “getting into shape,” so that much more likely to work.
Of course, one good thing about weight-loss goals: they are measurable. Anyone with a scale can keep track of progress.
And while 40 pounds is an intimidating goal for most, five pounds is much more achievable. Losing less than one pound per month is doable for most of us.
Whether fitting into an old pair of jeans or controlling blood pressure is meaningful to you, there must be a way to make the goal relevant to your day-to-day existence.
And choosing a target date makes your goal time-bound. Being accountable to the calendar can make a significant difference.
As with any long-term goal, be sure to account for set-backs.
You will slip up and forget the food journal, eat too much ice cream, or make a trip through the drive-through, so acknowledge the slip and forge ahead while making sure to acknowledge your incremental progress. Do not allow one slip-up to erode your goal.
“Focus on the small wins so you can make gradual progress,” said Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit.
“If you’re building a habit, you’re planning for the next decade, not the next couple of months.”