Stica.

The science

What we build on, graded honestly.

Nothing in the Stica method is new science. What is unusual is living it end to end, and being straight about how strong each piece of evidence is. We keep an internal evidence map of over seventy graded research findings; every claim a Stica product makes traces back to one of them. This page shows the load-bearing ones, with their honest grade attached.

A grade is the strength of the evidence, not the popularity of the claim. Where the research is a meta-analysis across many studies, we say so and treat it as load-bearing. Where it is practitioner convention or contested, we still use it, but as a hypothesis we state openly, never as settled truth.

meta = meta-analysis, many pooled studies RCT = controlled trial evidence practice = practitioner convention, thin trial evidence contested = disputed, or shrinks under scrutiny

Why practice beats delivery

These findings shape Stica Apply: why every touchpoint asks you to recall or use something, never to re-read it, and why the schedule is fixed by the research rather than by mood.

Recalling from memory beats re-reading

meta

Retrieval practice (the testing effect) shows a pooled advantage of roughly g = 0.50 over restudying, rising to about 0.73 when the recall comes with feedback (Rowland, 2014). The honest caveat: most trials are educational, with few run inside corporate learning.

Shapes: every Stica Apply prompt asks you to produce, never to re-read

Spaced practice beats cramming

meta

Distributing practice over time improves retention, around g = 0.28 in applied settings (larger in the laboratory). It only works if the learner actually comes back, which is why the schedule in Stica Apply runs itself instead of waiting for willpower.

Shapes: the fixed, system-run arc in Stica Apply

Skills decay fast without use

meta

Unused skills fade measurably within a month of training and keep fading, which is why the first real application is designed into the plan's opening weeks rather than left to "someday". Decay curves for interpersonal skills are less well mapped, and we say so.

Shapes: the early "use it for real" step in every plan

Planning the first use makes it happen

meta, moderator-dependent

Implementation intentions ("when X happens, I will do Y") reliably help people start a behaviour. The classic large effect has shrunk in the most recent pooled analysis (2024, over 600 tests); the technique still earns its place, but for initiation more than maintenance, and we use it that way.

Shapes: plans anchor the first application to your own named situation

Why diagnosis comes before content

These findings shape Stica Craft: why every engagement starts by asking what kind of gap this is, and whether training is even the right lever.

Most behaviour problems are not knowledge problems

practice + systematic review

The established diagnostic frameworks (COM-B and its relatives, built from a synthesis of nineteen behaviour-change frameworks) separate capability from opportunity and motivation. The practitioner triage of "can't do" versus "won't do" has thin trial evidence but decades of field use; we apply it, and we tell you when your problem looks like environment or motivation rather than a course.

Shapes: the diagnosis stage of every Stica Craft analysis, and its willingness to say "this is not a training need"

The environment often outweighs the training

meta

Transfer climate, whether the workplace supports the new behaviour, explains a large share of whether training transfers (climate R² = .32 in the strongest pooled analysis; supervisor support correlates at roughly r = .31). The main transfer meta-analysis is now dated and rests on self-report, so we keep the claim modest, but the direction is one of the most consistent findings in the field.

Shapes: plans engage a manager, a peer or a default, not solo willpower

Motivation is the hinge

meta

Wanting to use what you learned is among the strongest predictors that you will (motivation to transfer, roughly r = .37, same dated-anchor caveat as above). Relevance framing helps too: showing people the personal usefulness of material has a pooled effect around d = 0.49, though much of that evidence comes from education rather than the workplace.

Shapes: plans built from your own goal and material, not a generic syllabus

Goals work best when you set them yourself

meta-summary

Specific, self-authored goals are one of the strongest individual levers in the literature, with the caveat that tight goals can harm novel, complex tasks. It is why the personal door of Stica Craft drafts a plan from your own answers and reflection, rather than assigning you one.

Shapes: the guided capture and reflection questions in every personal plan

What we hold as hypothesis, openly

Weaker evidence does not get quietly promoted. These are things we use, labelled as what they are.

Habit timelines vary enormously

systematic review

Habits typically take two to five months to form, with a documented range from days to nearly a year. The popular "66 days" figure is a misread mean from a single small study and we never use it as a target. Our arcs end when the behaviour holds, not on a fixed date.

Nudges alone are too small to carry a programme

contested

Once publication bias is corrected, the average nudge effect is close to zero (around d = 0.04 in the most critical pooled analysis). We use prompts and defaults as amplifiers inside a designed programme, never as the intervention itself.

AI-delivered learning is promising and unproven

mixed, workplace evidence thin

Adaptive and tutoring systems show real pooled gains on knowledge outcomes, but there is no pooled trial base yet for the newest AI tutors, engagement with digital behaviour-change tools decays without human structure, and AI assistance can improve output while leaving retention flat unless recall is designed in. Stica's answer is exactly that design: the AI drafts and schedules, the practice makes you produce, and we treat claims beyond knowledge acquisition as hypotheses to measure.

What we do not claim

We do not claim to prove your behaviour changed. On-the-job behaviour is the least-solved measurement in the field: self-report inflates change, and third-party observation is expensive. What we promise instead is honest instrumentation: plans designed around an observable leading indicator you choose, practice and confidence tracked over time in Stica Apply, and progress framed as "a sign it is working", never "proof it changed".

We also do not dress up thin evidence. Where a claim on this site rests on practitioner convention or contested research, it is labelled here. If you find a claim of ours that is not traceable to this page's standards, tell us: hello@stica.co.uk.

See it working, free.

The free personal plan is the method in miniature: diagnosis, typed gaps, do-today steps, reflection and a practice arc. Judge the science by the plan it writes for you.

Get your free plan