"Our products succeed when they become part of daily or weekly patterns," said Carol Berning, a consumer psychologist who recently retired from Procter & Gamble, the company that sold $76 billion of Tide, Crest and other products last year.
Chewing gum, once bought primarily by adolescent boys, is now featured in commercials as a breath freshener and teeth cleanser for use after a meal.
The companies that Dr. Curtis turned to — Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive and Unilever — had invested hundreds of millions of dollars finding the subtle cues in consumers' lives that corporations could use to introduce new routines.
If you look hard enough, you'll find that many of the products we use every day — chewing gums, skin moisturizers, disinfecting wipes, air fresheners, water purifiers, health snacks, antiperspirants, colognes, teeth whiteners, fabric softeners, vitamins — are results of manufactured habits.
As this new science of habit has emerged, controversies have erupted when the tactics have been used to sell questionable beauty creams or unhealthy foods.
"There are fundamental public health problems, like dirty hands instead of a soap habit, that remain killers only because we can't figure out how to change people's habits," said Dr. Curtis, the director of the Hygiene Center at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
In 1968, the Congress of the United States passed the Jury Selection and Service Act, ushering in a new era of democratic reforms for the jury.
Many Americans regard the jury system as a concrete expression of crucial democratic values, including the principles that all citizens who meet minimal qualifications of age and literacy are equally competent to serve on juries; that jurors should be selected randomly from a representative cross section of the community; that no citizen should be denied the right to serve on a jury on account of race, religion, sex, or national origin; that defendants are entitled to trial by their peers; and that verdicts should represent the conscience of the community and not just the letter of the law.
This practice was justified by the claim that women were needed at home, and it kept juries unrepresentative of women through the 1960s.
Although women first served on state juries in Utah in 1898, it was not until the 1940s that a majority of states made women eligible for jury duty.
Although the Supreme Court of the United States had prohibited intentional racial discrimination in jury selection as early as the 1880 case of Strauder v. West Virginia, the practice of selecting so-called elite or blue-ribbon juries provided a convenient way around this and other antidiscrimination laws.
All but two pieces sold, fetching more than ￡70m, a record for a sale by a single artist.
This episode crystallizes the irony that although American men tend to talk more than women in public situations, they often talk less at home.
I found, as Hacker observed years before, that most wives want their husbands to be first and foremost conversational partners but few husbands share this expectation of their wives.
Sociologist Catherine Kohler Riessman reports in her new book "Divorce Talk" that most of the women she interviewed — but only a few of the men — gave lack of communication as the reason for their divorces.
Given the current divorce rate of nearly 50 percent, that amounts to millions of cases in the United States every year — a virtual epidemic of failed conversation.
Within weeks the world's two biggest auction houses, Sotheby's and Christie's, had to pay out nearly $200m in guarantees to clients who had placed works for sale with them.
In short the image that best represents the current crisis is the stereotypical cartoon scene of a man sitting at the breakfast table with a newspaper held up in front of his face, while a woman glares at the back of it, wanting to talk.
In the weeks and months that followed Mr. Hirst's sale, spending of any sort became deeply unfashionable, especially in New York, where the bail-out of the banks coincided with the loss of thousands of jobs and the financial demise of many art-buying investors.
But the market generates interest far beyond its size because it brings together great wealth, enormous egos, greed, passion and controversy in a way matched by few other industries.
What makes this slump different from the last, he says, is that there are still buyers in the market, whereas in the early 1990s, when interest rates were high, there was no demand even though many collectors wanted to sell.
If she didn't keep the conversation going, we'd spend the whole evening in silence.
This time experts reckon that prices are about 40% down on their peak on average, though some have been far more fluctuant.
Throughout the evening one man had been particularly talkative, frequently offering ideas and anecdotes, while his wife sat silently beside him on the couch.
We are even farther removed from the unfocused newspaper reviews published in England between the turn of the 20th century and the eve of World War II, at a time when newsprint was dirt-cheap and stylish arts criticism was considered an ornament to the publications in which it appeared.
To read such books today is to marvel at the fact that their learned contents were once deemed suitable for publication in general-circulation dailies.
Yet a considerable number of the most significant collections of criticism published in the 20th century consisted in large part of newspaper reviews.
Theirs was a serious business, and even those reviewers who wore their learning lightly, like George Bernard Shaw and Ernest Newman, could be trusted to know what they were about.
Of all the changes that have taken place in English-language newspapers during the past quarter-century, perhaps the most far-reaching has been the inexorable decline in the scope and seriousness of their arts coverage.
In those far-off days, it was taken for granted that the critics of major papers would write in detail and at length about the events they covered.