# Identity–Action Gap: Working Research Note
**Sahil Tayal / Independent research atlas / 23 October 2026**  
**Status: editorial summary of a proposed inquiry; not a manuscript, registered protocol, peer-reviewed paper, dataset or validated instrument.**

## Primary question
Why do sincere intentions sometimes fail to translate into observable actions, and which contextual conditions account for variation in follow-through?

## Working vocabulary (not a validated scale)
- **I — Identity:** self-concept relevance of the contemplated behaviour.
- **A — Action specification:** how clearly the intended action and opportunity are defined.
- **E — Environment:** structural and practical conditions allowing action.
- **S — Salience:** whether relevant cues and priorities are attended to at the moment.
- **F — Friction:** cognitive, social, emotional and practical obstacles that may delay or block an act.

These distinctions overlap. In particular, perceived friction is not the same thing as an empirically identified causal factor. Definitions and instruments require further work.

## Questions for a pilot (editorial, not manuscript quotations)
1. Are prospective reports of friction associated with later execution after considering intention strength, past behaviour and opportunities?
2. Does identity relevance sometimes support execution and sometimes encourage avoidance of threatening outcomes?
3. How much within-person variation follows from changing context rather than stable individual characteristics?
4. Do any proposed variables add predictive value beyond established behaviour-change baselines?

## Plausible study path, subject to protocol development
1. Preregister outcome definitions and sensible alternative models.
2. Obtain informed consent and any appropriate ethical review.
3. Define exact behaviours, relevant windows and genuine opportunities.
4. Pilot measures and distinguish resources, support, perceived control and friction.
5. Measure prospectively rather than retrospectively where possible.
6. Observe repeated opportunities within participant, accounting for confounds and missingness.
7. Evaluate out-of-sample performance, null findings, construct overlap and generalisability.

## Limitations to preserve
The model may add no value beyond existing theory. Non-execution can be rational, protective or prosocial. Institutions and unequal power influence feasible action. Observed action is not an unambiguous measure of virtue, capability or commitment.

## Selected established research
- Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50*(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
- Fogg, B. J. (2009). A behavior model for persuasive design. *Proceedings of Persuasive '09*. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999 . Official explanation: https://behaviordesign.stanford.edu/resources/fogg-behavior-model
- Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. *American Psychologist, 54*(7), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
- Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. *Implementation Science, 6*, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

## Related public writing and experiences
- https://identityaction.sahiltayal.com/ — author's conceptual inquiry
- https://humancapital.sahiltayal.com/ — research-informed ethical essay
- https://workpsychology.sahiltayal.com/ — research-informed work psychology essay
- https://thekiranaobservatory.sahiltayal.com/ — fictional shop simulation, not empirical data
- https://sahiltayal.com/ — canonical parent universe

**Provenance:** This short note was prepared for the website from publicly available author pages and separately identified established research. It has not been checked against a complete author-approved original manuscript.