New Year’s Resolutions: The Habit Hierarchy vs. The Behavior Stack

Many of us don’t struggle with habits because we don’t care enough. We struggle because the behavior we’re aiming for actually asks more of our system than it can currently support.

We’ve probably felt the difference. On some weeks, routines feel almost effortless. We move our body, eat well, focus easily, and follow through without much friction. On other weeks, the same actions feel impossibly heavy. Nothing about our character changed. Our system did.

Behavior is not an isolated act of willpower, unlike what much of pop psychology seems to push on social media. Behavior is a combination of energy, regulation, cognition, and context working together with a sprinkle of willpower in some cased. When those layers are aligned, consistency feels natural. When they’re overloaded, “trying harder” only adds pressure to a system that’s already strained.

From Isolated Habits to Systems Thinking

Much of the habit advice out there treats behaviors as standalone choices. Do the thing. Be disciplined. Stick to the plan. When it fails, the explanation defaults to motivation or mindset. Motivation and mindset play a role, but it’s a disservice to think they’re the only levers involved.

Human behavior doesn’t work that way. Every action sits inside a biological and psychological system with real constraints. Energy availability, stress load, emotional stability, and cognitive clarity all shape what behaviors are even possible on a given day.

Under increasing load, the range of available behaviors narrows in predictable ways. Flexibility drops. Short-term relief becomes more attractive than long-term goals. This isn’t a flaw in itself. It’s how adaptive systems protect themselves when capacity is exceeded.

Introducing the Behavior Stack

One useful way to think about this is as a behavior stack, which is a set of foundational supports that determine what behaviors are actually sustainable. It’s not an end-all, be-all, but it’s a much better way to conceptualize habits and behavior change. If you're familiar with the habit hierarchy, the simplicity of it is enticing, but it can also be inaccurate.

This isn’t a rigid ladder where we “unlock” levels once and move on. The layers influence one another constantly. What happens at the base shapes what’s possible at the top, but the model still helps explain how people can execute “top level” behaviors while lacking a solid base.

Lower layers don’t dictate outcomes, but they do place limits. When those limits are respected, behavior feels fluid. When they’re ignored, even simple habits start to feel like uphill battles.

Layer 1: Energy Availability

At the base of the stack is energy. Sleep, fueling, and recovery aren’t lifestyle bonuses. They’re the currency that behavior runs on. Without a solid base, other behaviors are absolutely possible but likely unsustainable.

Executive function, impulse control, and emotional regulation all depend on adequate energy availability. When sleep is short or recovery is incomplete, the brain prioritizes survival and efficiency over long-term planning. That’s why intentions collapse first when we’re tired.

We can’t override energy deficits with willpower in the long run, even though I’m sure most of us wish that was the case. We can sometimes borrow from stress systems, but that creates debt. Sustainable behavior starts with having enough physiological capacity to support it.

Layer 2: Regulation and Stress Recovery

Regulation sits above energy. This is the system’s ability to shift between effort and recovery rather than staying stuck in one mode.

Under chronic stress, behavior narrows. The system seeks relief rather than growth. That’s why people often reach for numbing, distracting, or familiar behaviors (good or bad) when overloaded, even if they “know better.”

Consistency doesn’t require staying calm and controlled all the time; it requires flexibility. When a system can downshift and recover, it regains options. Regulation is what reopens the behavioral menu.

Layer 3: Cognitive and Emotional Load

Knowing what to do is rarely the problem. We’ve all probably heard or seen “what to do” enough times that it’s memorized. The challenge is having the bandwidth to do it.

High cognitive load fills working memory with noise (i.e. Our brain is foggy and rapidly depletes our energy…and patience). Decisions pile up. Small tasks start to feel disproportionately heavy. The behavior itself hasn’t changed, but the mental cost of initiating it has.

Clarity and overwhelm are not personality traits. They’re states. When emotional and cognitive load is high, even well-established routines can feel fragile or fall apart. Reducing load often does more for consistency than adding motivation ever could. Sometimes the highest leverage action is to do less rather than more.

Layer 4: Structure and Routine

This is where habits usually get introduced, and where they’re often misunderstood. If we immediately jump into Layer 4 without the layers below, everything is much more challenging.

Structure doesn’t create capacity on its own. It amplifies what’s already there. When energy, regulation, and clarity are sufficient, routines make life easier. When they aren’t, structure can feel restrictive or brittle. 

It’s important to touch on what a habit truly is. Cambridge Dictionary defines a habit as “something that you do often and regularly; a repeated action or behavior.” For the sake of understanding the importance of the behavior stack, it’s essential to add some nuance to this. A habit is a behavior that has been repeated so many times that doing it is actually easier than not doing it. Everything we do can technically be a “behavior,” but until we hit that level of automaticity, we don’t have the habit yet.

This is why adding more rules, tasks, and goals under stress often backfires. The system interprets them as additional load rather than something that saves energy immediately. Structure works best when it supports capacity and leads to efficiency, not when it demands more energy than we have to give.

Layer 5: Identity and Integration

Identity is often framed as the starting point. “Be the kind of person who…” but identity is more accurately an outcome. This is another point that needs some nuance. Identity can be split into two types: 1.) Desired identity is often what is meant as the starting point. Phrasing this as “I am ____” is scientifically proven to help us move in the direction of change. 2.) Lived identity is the outcome and the top layer in the behavior stack. This is when we don’t even have to think about the given behavior (now a habit) because it’s a part of who we are.

Repeated, supported behavior gradually integrates into self-concept. When actions feel natural and sustainable, identity follows without effort. When behavior requires constant force, identity rarely sticks.

Integration happens when behavior aligns with system readiness. At that point, not doing the behavior feels stranger than doing it, and that’s when repetition becomes automatic rather than effortful.

Why Some People Seem to Succeed Anyway

We probably know people who appear consistent despite obvious strain. They wake early, train hard, and push through stress without visible collapse. Maybe they have a robust behavior stack, which is great, but sometimes they don’t yet still execute at a high level.

Often, this works through stored capacity built earlier, external scaffolding like deadlines or pressure, or overcompensation through control and intensity. These strategies can produce results, sometimes for an extended period of time.

The issue is stability. These approaches often rely on conditions that eventually change. When the scaffolding disappears or capacity runs out, behavior collapses suddenly rather than gradually. This helps explains why we see elite operators, executives, athletes, and others burnout or have a forced reset.

Why the Stack Breaks

Many modern environments quietly erode the lower layers of the behavior stack without us knowing.

Chronic stress, constant context switching, cognitive overload, and under-recovery have become normal. Systems rarely return fully to baseline before the next demand arrives.

In that context, many so-called failures of discipline are actually failures of support. The system is doing exactly what it evolved to do under sustained load, that is conserve energy and reduce optional effort. Unfortunately, when the debt comes due, it makes itself quite obvious.

What This Changes About Behavior

The most useful question we can ask ourselves shifts from “Why can’t I stick to this?” to “What layer is under-supported right now?”

Instead of pushing harder, we build from the bottom up. We learn to expect a cycle rather than linear progress. We treat inconsistency as information, not evidence of weakness.

This doesn’t mean lowering standards. It means matching expectations to capacity and letting behavior emerge from stability rather than force. This approach leads to a much more robust system, and oftentimes, better outcomes across the board, not just for the goal at hand.

A Reframe for Your New Year’s Resolution

Because we’re getting close to the end of the year, hopefully the behavior stack provides a different way to look at the New Year’s resolutions. When a behavior feels impossible, it’s rarely a "personal failure." It’s a signal to maybe reassess which layer should be tackled first. 

That’s not to say the goal doesn’t remain the same. It simply shows where support is missing and what the first step towards that goal might be. When that layer is restored, consistency and forward progress often returns without a fight. Our system is adaptive, and behavior, when understood in context, becomes less about discipline and more about readiness and energy.

The behavior stack is just a way to understand actions and habits through capacity and support. It’s not a diagnostic tool, a treatment, or a rigid system, so feel free to play around with it and see what works. Remember that motivation rises and falls naturally. Capacity determines where that motivation can effectively be directed.

References

1. Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422.

2. McEwen, B. S. (2006). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators: Central role of the brain. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 8(4), 367–381.

3. Boksem, M. A. S., & Tops, M. (2008). Mental fatigue: Costs and benefits. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 125–139.

4. Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375–389.

5. Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit–goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863.

6. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.