Why do intentions fail to become actions? What does work reveal about human beings? How do we develop capability without reducing people to economic inputs?
I’m Sahil Tayal. This is where I make my assumptions, research questions and uncertainties visible—so an interesting idea has a chance to become a testable one.
01 / THE QUESTIONS
The common thread is the relationship between individual aspiration and the circumstances that make action, learning and dignity possible.
The Identity–Action Gap asks whether identity, intention, opportunity, salience and friction help explain the translation of contemplated actions into observable behaviour.
Key caveat: these proposed terms are not a validated scale, and existing behaviour-change models already explain important parts of the puzzle.
Examine the working modelHuman capital can describe economically useful capabilities. But should the value of developing a person be measured only by what their employer captures?
Read Human Capital for Humans ↗Employee behaviour is shaped not only by individual capability but also by incentives, roles, psychological safety and institutional power.
Explore the psychology of work ↗Explore a simulated kirana ledger where monetary decisions have operational and human consequences. It is a teaching model, not field evidence.
Open the Kirana Observatory ↗02 / THE WORKING MODEL
This is a conceptual map of influences worth measuring, not a discovered causal equation. The distinctions below are provisional and may need to change.
Rather than treating an unfinished goal as evidence of weak character, locate a specific intended behaviour, the opportunity at which it might have occurred, and the context surrounding that moment.
These are editorial test questions based on the public inquiry, not quotations from an approved manuscript.
For a specified intention, do higher perceived obstacles precede fewer completed actions when opportunities are comparable?
Does strong identity identification sometimes support persistence and sometimes increase avoidance of identity-threatening failure?
How much variation in a person's follow-through is explained by changes in opportunity and constraint within that same person?
Do proposed constructs add useful predictive information beyond intention, perceived control, habits and existing behaviour frameworks?
03 / THE EVIDENCE
These are established research traditions and primary publications to read alongside the proposed model. They provide context, not validation of the Identity–Action Gap.
Intentions matter, but perceived control and social influence are also relevant. A new model must address what this literature already accounts for.
Not evidence for: a unique Identity–Action Gap coefficient or identity-to-action equation.
Read the primary publication ↗The Fogg model considers motivation, ability and prompt convergence. Its emphasis on conditions of action is a useful comparison.
Not evidence for: ownership, novelty or validation of this site's proposed constructs.
Read Stanford's model explanation ↗Specific if–then plans can help bridge intention and action. This makes action specification an important competitor to any broad account of friction.
Not evidence for: the claim that every planned action succeeds.
Read the journal record ↗Capability, opportunity and motivation offer a broad system for considering behaviour. Any proposed framework should be compared against this established alternative.
Not evidence for: the superiority of a new friction framework.
Read the open-access article ↗Reading shelf assembled from identifiable primary sources and an official university research resource. References do not imply endorsement of Sahil Tayal or this independent project.
04 / LIMITATIONS & COUNTERARGUMENTS
Being able to tell a persuasive story after an action doesn't occur is not enough. We need explanations that could have been wrong before the outcome.
Yes, if the word means any inconvenient explanation after the fact. The concept needs a pre-registered definition, distinct categories and measurements made before behaviour is observed.
No. Revising a goal, refusing an unsafe demand, respecting another person's boundary or prioritising a competing obligation can be rational. Outcome categories must distinguish these cases from avoidable non-execution.
Possibly not. Intention strength, habit, opportunity, perceived control and cue-based planning may explain the outcome sufficiently. A negative incremental-validity result would be useful evidence against expanding the framework.
Care responsibilities, authority, unequal resources, disability access, discrimination and institutional incentives are not reducible to willpower. A model that blames individuals for structural constraints is inadequate.
Self-reported intentions and perceived obstacles may suffer recall bias, demand characteristics and changing self-presentation. Designs need time-stamped measures and, where appropriate and consented to, independently observable outcomes.
05 / NEXT TESTS
No new evidence is claimed below. This is one plausible methodological route toward testing the central question, pending author-approved materials and research design.
Ask participants to nominate a small number of observable intended actions, with a clear time window and opportunity criterion. Document competing obligations and voluntary goal changes.
Collect contextual opportunity, perceived friction, identity relevance and intention measures prospectively. Pilot the items for clarity and separate overlapping constructs.
Follow within-person episodes over time; record whether an opportunity genuinely occurred and distinguish completion from intentional deferral, changed goals or blocked action.
Compare preregistered model predictions with reasonable alternatives informed by Theory of Planned Behavior, COM-B, cue-based planning and past behaviour. Evaluate out-of-sample performance where feasible.
Report missing data, limits to generalisation, measures that failed, alternative interpretations, and negative findings. Seek appropriate ethics review when real participants are involved.
A Markdown summary of the conceptual map, methodological questions and verified bibliography. Not an academic paper or official protocol.
A NOTE ON OWNERSHIP AND EVIDENCE
This is an independent, evolving research-facing portfolio—not a university lab, a peer-reviewed journal, or a claim of institutional endorsement. My background includes commerce studies at Sri Venkateswara College and an MBA from JBIMS; my public work spans writing, organisational behaviour, human capital and creative web experiments.
The aim is to make emerging ideas clearer, more testable and easier to challenge.