How to Change: Key Insights & Takeaways from Katy Milkman

Why do your best intentions so often fail? Katy Milkman's How to Change argues that the problem isn't weak willpower—it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how behavior change actually works. Drawing on decades of behavioral science research, Milkman reveals that different psychological obstacles require different evidence-based tools, and that matching the right strategy to your specific barrier is the key to lasting transformation.

This guide breaks down Milkman's complete framework for achieving your goals, from temptation bundling and commitment devices to fresh starts and social strategies. Whether you've struggled with the same New Year's resolution for years or you're launching a new habit tomorrow, you'll learn exactly which psychological levers to pull—and why they work.

Start practicing How to Change for free ▸

Why does willpower fail, and what should you use instead?

Willpower fails because we treat behavior change as a character test rather than a problem-solving exercise. Milkman's core insight is that successful transformation requires matching specific psychological obstacles—present bias, forgetting, social pressure, overconfidence—with evidence-based tools designed to counter each one. You don't need more discipline; you need the right strategy for your particular barrier.

This framework shifts responsibility from personal weakness to systematic problem-solving. If you struggle with procrastination, you need commitment devices. If instant gratification derails your goals, temptation bundling can help. If you keep forgetting your new habit, implementation intentions will anchor it. The key is diagnosis before prescription—understanding which psychological force is working against you before selecting your intervention.

The research consistently shows that people who approach behavior change this way—treating it as a matching problem rather than a willpower problem—achieve significantly higher success rates. They're not stronger or more disciplined; they're just using tools designed for human psychology rather than fighting against it.

What is temptation bundling and how does it increase success rates by 51%?

Temptation bundling is a strategy where you only allow yourself to enjoy a guilty pleasure while simultaneously doing something beneficial—like only watching your favorite Netflix show while exercising or only listening to addictive podcasts while doing household chores. In Milkman's studies, this approach increased gym visits by 51% because it transforms activities you should do into activities you want to do.

The strategy works by hijacking present bias—our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over future benefits—and making it work for us rather than against us. Instead of relying on willpower to choose the treadmill over the couch, temptation bundling makes the treadmill the place where you get to enjoy your show. The immediate experience becomes as rewarding as the temptations that usually derail you.

The key to effective temptation bundling is choosing complementary activities that use different cognitive or physical resources. Pairing audiobooks with running works because listening doesn't interfere with physical activity. Pairing TV with focused work fails because both compete for visual attention. When you create successful bundles, you can fully enjoy the temptation while completing the beneficial task.

Creating your own temptation bundles

To build your own bundles, list your guilty pleasures on one side and your avoided beneficial activities on the other, then look for complementary pairings. The most effective bundles create exclusive associations—the temptation becomes only available during the beneficial activity. This exclusivity is what drives the 51% improvement; if you can watch Netflix anytime, it loses its power to pull you to the gym.

Practice temptation bundling strategies ▸

What are fresh starts and why do gym searches spike 14% every Monday?

Fresh starts work because temporal landmarks—New Year's Day, birthdays, the start of a new week, or even Mondays—create psychological distance from past failures. People Google 'diet' 80% more on January 1st, 'gym' searches spike every Monday, and gym attendance increases 33% in January and 14% at the start of each week. These aren't coincidences; they're evidence of a powerful psychological phenomenon.

These natural reset points allow us to mentally separate our 'old self' from our 'new self,' reducing the weight of past failures and creating optimism about future success. When you start fresh, previous setbacks feel like they belong to a different person—someone in your past rather than the person you are now. This psychological distance makes it easier to believe that this time will be different.

The powerful insight is that you can manufacture fresh starts anytime. The first day after a promotion, after moving apartments, the day after your birthday, or even an arbitrary date that feels meaningful to you can trigger the same motivational boost as New Year's. Research shows that any date that feels psychologically significant can serve as a fresh start, giving you multiple opportunities throughout the year to reset and recommit.

How do commitment devices increase success rates by 30%?

Commitment devices are tools that impose real costs for failure—like betting money you'll lose if you don't meet your goal, scheduling appointments that create social obligations, or using apps that donate your money to organizations you oppose if you fail. These devices increase success rates by 30% because they make the future consequences of procrastination immediate and tangible.

The strategy works by overcoming hyperbolic discounting—our tendency to heavily discount future costs and benefits compared to present ones. Normally, the pain of exercise feels much more real than the distant reward of better health. Commitment devices flip this by creating present-moment stakes for future behavior, turning abstract future regret into concrete immediate loss that our brains can't ignore.

Hard vs. soft commitment devices

Cash commitment devices work best when the money goes to 'anti-charities'—organizations you oppose—rather than charities you support. Losing money to causes you hate creates stronger psychological pain than forfeiting donations to good causes. But soft commitment devices like public pledges and scheduled appointments work nearly as well by leveraging our deep aversion to social inconsistency. Publicly announcing goals on social media or scheduling workout sessions with friends creates social stakes that tap into our fundamental need to maintain a consistent self-image.

Understanding these strategies is step one. Remembering them when you need them is step two.
Loxie uses spaced repetition to ensure these behavior change techniques are available in your memory when you're actually setting goals and building habits—not just when you're reading about them.

Try Loxie for free ▸

Why do implementation intentions double goal achievement rates?

Implementation intentions are 'if-then' plans that specify exactly when, where, and how you'll perform a behavior—like 'If it's 7am on Tuesday, then I'll go to the gym' or 'If I finish lunch, then I'll take a 10-minute walk.' These simple plans double goal achievement rates because they outsource decisions from your unreliable conscious mind to automatic environmental cues.

The power of implementation intentions lies in what they eliminate: the need for willpower or motivation in the moment. By pre-deciding exactly when and where you'll act, these plans create automatic behavioral triggers that function like habits even before the behavior becomes habitual. When the specified situation occurs, the response fires automatically without requiring deliberation.

Vague intentions like 'I'll exercise more' leave too many decisions open—when, where, which exercise, for how long. Each decision point is an opportunity for present bias to derail you. Implementation intentions close these decision gaps in advance, making the path from intention to action as frictionless as possible.

Why does adding friction to bad habits work better than boosting good ones?

Adding friction to bad habits is more effective than making good habits convenient due to an interesting asymmetry in human behavior. Moving candy dishes just 6 feet away cuts consumption by 50%, while making healthy food slightly more convenient increases consumption by only 10-20%. This difference reveals something important about how habits operate.

Bad habits often rely on impulse and convenience—they're automatic responses to environmental cues. Even small barriers can break the automatic behavior chain because they introduce a decision point where there wasn't one before. Good habits, on the other hand, require sustained motivation that convenience alone can't provide. Making vegetables easier to grab helps, but not as dramatically as making candy harder to reach.

The practical implication is that you should invest more energy in designing obstacles for unwanted behaviors than in smoothing the path for desired ones. Delete social media apps from your phone rather than just trying to open them less. Put your alarm clock across the room rather than relying on willpower to get out of bed. Keep junk food out of the house rather than trying to resist it when it's in the pantry.

Learn friction strategies with Loxie ▸

How do opt-out systems achieve 90% participation vs. 10-15% for opt-in?

Opt-out systems achieve 90% participation rates compared to just 10-15% for opt-in systems because they harness status quo bias—our powerful tendency to stick with pre-set choices regardless of our actual preferences. When the desired behavior is the default, people follow the path of least resistance toward good outcomes rather than away from them.

From retirement savings to organ donation, this massive difference demonstrates that laziness and inertia are more powerful than intention. In countries where organ donation is opt-out, over 90% of citizens are registered donors. In opt-in countries with similar cultures and values, rates hover around 15%. The only difference is what box people have to check.

The implication for personal behavior change is to design your environment so that good choices are automatic and bad choices require active decisions. Set up automatic transfers to savings rather than manually transferring money. Pre-schedule workouts that you'd have to cancel rather than sign up for. Subscribe to healthy meal kits that arrive unless you opt out. Make the default what you want to happen.

What is the 85% confidence sweet spot for behavior change?

The optimal confidence level for attempting behavior change is 85% certainty—high enough to motivate the attempt but low enough to trigger preparation for obstacles. Both overconfidence (95%+) and underconfidence (below 70%) predict failure, but for different reasons.

Overconfident people skip essential planning because they don't think they'll need it, then quit after the first setback because failure wasn't supposed to happen. Underconfident people often don't start at all, convinced that effort is futile. The 85% zone maintains motivation while triggering what researchers call 'protective pessimism'—the recognition that things might go wrong leads to contingency planning and resilience.

If you find yourself at 95% confidence, deliberately imagine obstacles and plan responses. If you're at 60%, remind yourself of past successes and seek evidence that people like you have succeeded. The goal isn't blind optimism or defensive pessimism—it's calibrated confidence that respects both your capabilities and the difficulty of the challenge.

What are copy-paste strategies and why do they outperform general advice?

Copy-paste strategies involve finding someone who succeeded at your exact goal and copying their specific tactics rather than following general advice. This approach works better because it provides tested blueprints that account for hidden obstacles you haven't anticipated. Someone who's already done what you're trying to do has already solved problems you don't even know exist yet.

The key is finding 'role models' who faced similar constraints—the same job, family situation, starting point, or personality type. General advice like 'exercise regularly' ignores the specific challenges of your life. But if you can find someone who works your hours, has your commute, and still managed to build an exercise habit, their specific tactics are far more actionable than generic recommendations.

Rather than reinventing solutions through painful trial and error, copy-paste strategies let you leverage others' learning. This is especially valuable for complex behavior changes where the path to success isn't obvious and where small implementation details can make the difference between success and failure.

Why do accountability partners increase success by 95%, but only certain kinds?

Weekly check-ins with accountability partners increase success rates by 95%, but only when the partner is a peer rather than a superior. Horizontal accountability creates support and honest problem-solving; vertical accountability triggers performance anxiety and avoidance. The distinction matters enormously.

Peer accountability works because it allows for honest struggle-sharing. When you slip up, you can discuss what went wrong and brainstorm solutions without fear of judgment. Hierarchical relationships—with a boss, parent, or authority figure—activate fear of disappointing them, which leads to hiding failures rather than addressing them. People start avoiding check-ins when things go badly, which is exactly when they need support most.

The ideal accountability partner shares your goal or faces similar challenges, checks in regularly (weekly is optimal), and focuses on problem-solving rather than judgment. Mutual accountability, where you both hold each other responsible for goals, tends to be particularly effective because it creates reciprocal investment in each other's success.

Practice accountability strategies ▸

What does 'one size fits one' mean for behavior change?

The 'one size fits one' principle means that successful behavior change requires personal experimentation because strategies that work for 70% of people might fail completely for you. Individual differences in personality, context, life circumstances, and psychology create enough variation that following universal prescriptions is unreliable.

This recognition shifts the approach from finding the 'best' technique to systematically testing multiple strategies and customizing combinations. Treat behavior change as a personal science experiment: try temptation bundling for two weeks, measure the results, then try commitment devices, compare, and iterate. What works for your friend, your favorite author, or 'most people' may not work for you.

Milkman's mega-studies—experiments testing dozens of interventions simultaneously on thousands of participants—reveal that the same technique can vary from 500% effective to completely useless depending on tiny implementation details. How you implement temptation bundling, when you send reminders, or who delivers social proof messages can completely change outcomes. This finding emphasizes that execution matters as much as strategy selection.

How does gamification make behavior change stick?

Gamification works for behavior change by adding immediate rewards—points, badges, streaks, progress bars—to activities with delayed benefits. Apps like Duolingo maintain 34% monthly retention rates by making language learning feel like playing a game, satisfying our need for instant feedback while we work toward long-term goals.

These instant feedback mechanisms essentially hack our reward systems to make beneficial behaviors as compelling as social media or mobile games. The dopamine hit from maintaining a streak or earning a badge provides the immediate gratification our brains crave, bridging the gap between present effort and future reward.

The strategy aligns with Milkman's broader principle that the most effective behavior change strategies work by making desired actions more immediately rewarding. Rather than relying on distant benefits like 'fluency in Spanish' or 'better health,' gamification turns the journey itself into the reward.

Why does self-compassion after failure beat self-criticism?

Self-compassion after setbacks leads to better long-term outcomes than self-criticism because it preserves self-efficacy—your belief in your ability to succeed. Research shows that people who forgive themselves for diet lapses lose more weight than those who spiral into guilt, a finding that contradicts our intuition that we need to be hard on ourselves to improve.

Harsh self-judgment triggers what researchers call the 'what-the-hell effect,' where one failure leads to complete abandonment of the goal. You skip one workout, feel terrible about yourself, conclude you're not the kind of person who exercises, and stop entirely. Self-compassion breaks this cycle by maintaining the emotional resources needed to restart after setbacks.

This doesn't mean ignoring failures or lowering standards. It means treating yourself with the same kindness you'd offer a friend, recognizing that setbacks are part of the process rather than evidence of personal deficiency, and focusing on what to do next rather than ruminating on what went wrong.

What are elastic habits and why do they maintain consistency 2x longer?

Elastic habits allow flexibility within a defined range—'at least X but up to Y'—rather than setting rigid targets. Goals like '1-20 pushups' or '5-30 minutes of reading' maintain consistency twice as long as fixed goals because they accommodate natural variation in energy and circumstances without triggering all-or-nothing thinking.

Rigid goals create a trap: on days when you can't hit the target, you face a choice between failing completely or not trying at all. Elastic habits recognize that showing up imperfectly beats not showing up. On low-energy days, doing the minimum keeps the habit alive. On high-energy days, you can push toward the upper end. The streak survives either way.

This flexibility prevents the demotivating cycle of breaking streaks while maintaining forward momentum. Research shows that consistency matters more than intensity for habit formation, making elastic goals particularly effective for establishing new behaviors that need to survive the variability of real life.

How does social proof messaging affect behavior change?

Social proof messages that highlight growing trends—'more and more people are switching to...'—motivate behavior change 30% more effectively than static norms—'most people do...' This difference occurs because dynamic norms signal social momentum and future belonging rather than just current conformity.

Dynamic norms tap into our desire to be ahead of the curve rather than simply fitting in. They make people feel like they're joining a movement rather than conforming to established patterns, which particularly motivates early adopters and younger demographics who value being on the leading edge of change.

When designing your own environment or nudging others, frame beneficial behaviors as trending upward rather than already universal. 'Vegetarianism is growing among young professionals' works better than 'Many people are vegetarian' because it positions the behavior as the future rather than just the present.

The real challenge with How to Change

How to Change is packed with research-backed strategies that could genuinely transform how you approach your goals. The problem? Within two weeks, you'll have forgotten most of these techniques. Within a month, the book will be a vague memory of 'that thing about temptation bundling' and 'something about fresh starts.'

This isn't a criticism of you or the book—it's how memory works. The forgetting curve shows that we lose 70% of new information within 24 hours and 90% within a week without reinforcement. How many books have you read that felt life-changing in the moment but you can't recall three key points from today?

The irony is painful: a book about behavior change strategies becomes useless if you can't remember the strategies when you need them. Implementation intentions only work if you remember to create them. Temptation bundling only helps if the concept comes to mind when you're dreading the gym. The knowledge trapped in a book you read once doesn't change behavior.

How Loxie helps you actually remember what you learn

Loxie uses spaced repetition and active recall—the same learning science Milkman applies to behavior—to help you retain what you read. Instead of passively reading How to Change once and watching the insights fade, you practice for 2 minutes a day with questions that resurface concepts right before you'd naturally forget them.

This approach transforms book knowledge from a fleeting reading experience into durable, accessible mental models. When you're about to set a New Year's resolution, the fresh start research is actually in your head. When you're struggling with a new habit, temptation bundling and commitment devices are available as options, not forgotten passages you'd have to re-read to remember.

The free version of Loxie includes How to Change in its full topic library, along with hundreds of other books. You can start reinforcing these concepts immediately—and finally make behavior change knowledge stick the way Milkman intended.

Sign up free and start retaining ▸