NOPECUBE

How we use the science

Last checked: 24 September 2026

NOPECUBE itself has not been studied. These notes explain what the design is built around, not what it will do for you. They are not evidence that NOPECUBE works, and NOPECUBE is not a treatment.

From version 1.0 (in development), the app will show the same notes under Settings > What we based this on. Each note below starts with the exact text it will show there (In short), followed by the detail and the source.

How we grade

GradeIn the appWhat it means
AWell testedA large meta-analysis of many studies. The average effect can still be small.
BSome evidenceSeveral randomized studies, or a meta-analysis of a few.
COne studyOne paper or a small study, without independent replication.

The note on the click has no grade: it describes a design choice, not evidence. The grades are our own reading. They have not yet been reviewed by an independent researcher; that review is planned before a public release. We check our sources for retractions every three months.

If-then plans

Grade A · Well tested

In short: If-then plans (“When X, I will Y”) are among the most tested ways to follow through. On average their effect is small to moderate, and larger when the goal matters to you. NOPE’s intention uses this format.

Across 642 tests, plans in the form “if this happens, then I will…” had a small-to-medium average effect (d ≈ .36). On behaviour the effect was about .27, and about .15 after correcting for publication bias. Plans worked better in if-then form, when the goal mattered to the person and when the plan was rehearsed once. Recording or storing the plan went together with weaker effects (.31 against .44).

How we use it: the optional “When… / Then…” intention in Protect time, shown when you make it. From 0.7, its “Then…” part comes back once as the “Next:” line after OPEN. It is a cue, not a form to fill in.

Source: Sheeran, Listrom & Gollwitzer (2025), European Review of Social Psychology. DOI 10.1080/10463283.2024.2334563 · Checked 24 September 2026.

A plan for an unfinished task

Grade C · One study

In short: In studies from one paper, making a specific plan for an unfinished task made it pull less at people’s attention. That is why the cube asks for one small first step. One paper; not independently repeated.

Making a specific plan (when, where and how) for an unfinished goal reduced how often thoughts about that goal came up during a later, unrelated task. The finding is about attention only: the paper does not show that making the plan helped people feel better. It comes from a single paper, with students and online (MTurk) adults, and it has no direct independent replication.

How we use it: Put it in the cube (in internal testing since 0.7) ends with one small first step and a time, or with letting go. Put the day down keeps tomorrow’s first step in one line.

Source: Masicampo & Baumeister (2011), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. PDF from the author · Checked 24 September 2026.

Postponing worry to a set time

Grade B · Some evidence

In short: Putting a worry off to a fixed daily time reduced how long and how often people worried, by a small amount. The cube’s opening time borrows this idea. It is a self-help technique, not treatment.

Across seven randomized trials, postponing worry to a fixed daily window reduced how long and how often people worried, by small amounts (d ≈ .19 to .36).

How we use it: the cube (in internal testing since 0.7) opens once a day at a time you set, and what you put in comes back once. You can open it earlier; the time is a promise, not a lock.

Source: Dippel, Brosschot & Verkuil (2023), meta-analysis. DOI 10.1007/s41811-023-00193-x · Checked 24 September 2026.

Habits, and why there are no streaks

Grade B · Some evidence

In short: Habits grow from repetition in a stable moment; in a review of 20 studies this took a median of about two months, with wide differences between people, and in one study missing one day did not matter. In one paper, seeing a broken streak made people less likely to continue, so NOPECUBE has no streaks.

Habits formed through repetition in a stable context, and missing a single day did not make a meaningful difference to that process (one study). A 2024 review and meta-analysis of 20 studies found that forming a habit took a median of about two months (59 to 66 days), with wide differences between people (4 to 335 days), and that how often and when the behaviour was repeated affected how strong the habit became. Separately, seeing a broken streak reduced people’s later engagement, and the streak itself tended to become the goal (one paper with several studies). The grade rests on the review; the streak part rests on one paper.

How we use it: the same movement and the same click in moments you choose, and no streak to break.

Sources: Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts & Wardle (2010), European Journal of Social Psychology, DOI 10.1002/ejsp.674 · Singh, Murphy, Maher & Smith (2024), Healthcare, DOI 10.3390/healthcare12232488 · Silverman & Barasch (2023), Journal of Consumer Research, publisher page · Checked 24 September 2026.

What NOPE and the click actually are

Design, not evidence

In short: The click marks the moment a plan is sealed. It is not a treatment, and we do not claim that rituals reduce anxiety.

NOPE does only what you connect, shows you what it did, and OPEN closes it. OPEN turns off what NOPECUBE itself set up, but it cannot undo what another app did. The click is the same movement and the same sound each time. It is a sensory signal and changes nothing outside the app on its own. This note relies on no ritual study: the one we used to cite, Brooks et al. (2016), was retracted (see claims we withdrew).

Claims we withdrew

Earlier NOPECUBE pages made the claims below. We have withdrawn them, and the old pages are being corrected.