"I Was Worse Before": When Past Progress Becomes Present Permission

Two years ago, you were doing this every day. Now it is three times a week. A year ago, you were doing it for hours. Now it is forty minutes. The improvement is real, measurable, and it cost you something to achieve. So when the thought arrives, “I was worse before — this level is fine,” it feels earned.

And it may be. But the thought has a way of settling in and becoming permanent, turning a waypoint into a destination.

How the anchor works

Tversky and Kahneman demonstrated that initial reference points, anchors, disproportionately shape subsequent judgements, even when the anchor is arbitrary [1]. In the context of habit change, the anchor is your worst period. If you used to smoke a pack a day and now smoke five cigarettes, the five feel like a victory. And they are, relative to the anchor.

But the anchor is doing the evaluating. Five cigarettes a day is not objectively “fine.” It is better than twenty. The word “fine” is produced by the comparison, not by the behavior itself.

A fictional example

The following is an illustrative example, not a real person’s story.

Hugo used to spend four hours a day playing mobile games. After a determined effort, he got it down to about ninety minutes. His productivity improved, his sleep improved, and he felt genuinely proud.

Now ninety minutes has been stable for six months.

• What he thinks: “I was so much worse before. Ninety minutes is nothing compared to four hours. I’ve basically beaten this.”
• What he feels: Satisfied. Slightly defensive when his girlfriend suggests going further.
• What he does: Maintains ninety minutes without reconsidering whether it is where he wants to be. The ninety minutes have become the new normal, and normal does not get examined.

Hugo’s progress is real. His problem is that the progress has become its own justification for stopping.

The licensing effect

Research on perceived goal progress found that when people feel they have made good progress toward a goal, they are more likely to make indulgent choices, as though the progress has earned them credit [2]. A meta-analysis of 91 studies on moral licensing confirmed the effect: past good behavior can license subsequent behavior that undermines the original goal [3].

The mechanism is a kind of internal accounting. Effort goes in. Permission comes out. Hugo worked hard to get from four hours to ninety minutes. That effort now feels like a deposit, and the ninety minutes feel like a reasonable withdrawal.

A theoretical framework for justification-based self-regulation failure describes how people construct reasons that make indulgence feel permissible. Deservingness, effort and prior sacrifice are among the most common justification structures [5]. “I was worse before” is a textbook example: the past effort becomes the present license.

Comparing to the right reference point

Self-regulation theory describes goal pursuit in terms of feedback loops: you compare your current state to a desired state and adjust [4]. The system works when the reference point is the goal. It breaks when the reference point shifts to the starting condition.

Hugo is comparing to where he was (four hours). If he compared to where he wants to be, the picture might look different:

• Compared to four hours: Ninety minutes is a triumph.
• Compared to zero: Ninety minutes is the remaining distance.
• Compared to what he would do with that time: Ninety minutes is what he is still choosing to give.

None of these comparisons is more objectively correct. But they lead to different conclusions about whether the current level is “fine.”

Questions to examine the thought

When “I was worse before” arrives:

1. Is the comparison to where you were or where you want to be? Both are real. Only one tells you whether you are done.
2. Has the current level become comfortable enough to stop questioning? Comfort is not the same as satisfaction.
3. What would you tell someone who had never seen your worst? If they only knew the current level, would they call it fine?
4. Is the progress finished or paused? A rest after a difficult reduction is reasonable. A permanent settlement at the current level is a different thing.
5. What does this habit still cost you at the current level? Time, money, energy, sleep, attention. Has the cost dropped enough?

Holding both truths

The resolution is not to dismiss the progress. It is to hold two truths at once: I have come a long way, and I am not where I want to be. Both are real. The first deserves recognition. The second deserves honesty.

Hugo can be proud of the reduction and still ask whether ninety minutes is where he wants to stay. The pride and the question are not in conflict. They are companions.

For the pattern of using effort to justify the habit, see “I’ve earned a break” and when rest becomes the habit’s opening. For the related comparison to other people, see “I know people who do more” and the comfort of downward comparison.

When to get more support. If you have reduced a habit significantly but find yourself stuck at a level that still causes concern, a therapist can help you assess whether the current level is sustainable and healthy, or whether further change would serve you. This is especially useful when the habit involves substances, where the line between reduced use and continued risk can be hard to draw alone. In the US, call or text 988 if you are in crisis. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans are on 116 123.