We can understand ourselves, make sincere promises, and still struggle to act. What happens in that space?
The Behaviour Observatory explores the Identity–Action Gap (IAG): Sahil Tayal's proposed framework for examining how identity, intention, friction, context and feedback relate to observable action.
A working conceptual proposal, not an established scientific theory.
01 / The question
Why isn't understanding enough?
Imagine someone who values health, intends to walk every day, and repeatedly doesn't. It might be tempting to call this a motivation problem. But perhaps their workday is unpredictable, pain makes movement difficult, or the streets are unsafe.
Missing action is an observation, not a verdict about character. Existing research already examines intentions, habits, self-regulation and opportunity. IAG is an attempt to organise related questions around the distinction between what we believe about ourselves, what we intend, and what occurs in context.
02 / The proposed framework
The Identity–Action Gap
Six useful distinctions, offered as working concepts rather than validated scales.
01 / Self-concept
Who I believe I am
Identities and values through which we interpret ourselves. These beliefs may matter without reliably predicting every action.
02 / Intended action
What I plan to do
A specific commitment or intention. “Write a paragraph tonight” is more observable than “be a writer.”
03 / Observed action
What happens
Behaviour recorded within a relevant observation period. A missed action alone is not evidence of laziness.
04 / Friction
What makes it harder
Practical, emotional, cognitive or logistical obstacles. Friction is a conceptual category, not a universal measurement.
05 / Context
What is possible
Time, money, accessibility, support, health and opportunity shape feasible action.
06 / Feedback
What experience changes
Outcomes may alter future intentions, expectations, environments and self-concept.
Illustrative conceptual model
From self-concept to observable action
Self-conceptValues and identity beliefs
IntentionPlanned behaviour
Friction + contextConstraints and opportunity
Observed actionWhat occurs
FeedbackExperience and interpretation
Illustrative, not a tested causal pathway. Feedback may affect earlier elements; context may directly affect intentions and action. The left-to-right layout is a reading aid, not a claim that processes are strictly sequential.
What counts as a gap?
In ordinary language, an intended action has not occurred within a relevant period. But was the intention specific? Was the action feasible? Was the observation reliable? A person prevented from exercising by an injury is not in the same situation as someone who forgot an accessible appointment.
The IAG proposal treats the gap as a starting point for investigation, not a failure score. Changing an intention can also be a sensible response to new information.
03 / Testable propositions
Four working hypotheses
These are proposed predictions, not empirical findings or established laws.
Hypothesis H1
Friction and follow-through
Within a person, greater perceived or documented friction may be associated with lower likelihood of completing an intended action, other things being equal.
Possible test: Compare daily obstacles with later completion, while recording time and opportunity.
Hypothesis H2
Context matters
The association between intention and action may vary with resources, environmental support and practical opportunity.
Possible test: Compare outcomes for similar intentions across different documented contexts.
Hypothesis H3
Specificity and observation
Clearly defined intentions may show more consistent follow-through than vague aspirations, partly because they are easier to identify and measure.
Possible test: Distinguish changes in real behaviour from improvements in measurement clarity.
Hypothesis H4
Feedback and future plans
Prior outcomes may predict later expectations, intentions or environmental adjustments, with varying directions across people and situations.
Possible test: Examine time-ordered changes without assuming correlation establishes causation.
Important: Plausibility is not validation. Testing requires operational definitions, suitable comparisons, adequate data and attention to competing explanations.
04 / Research design
Studying behaviour within a person
A within-person design observes one individual's intentions, circumstances and actions repeatedly. It can help identify patterns obscured by comparisons between people who differ in resources, health and responsibilities.
Consider a voluntary, illustrative fourteen-day diary of one everyday goal. Fourteen days is an example, not a validated protocol.
Moment
Question
Example
Before the day
What do I intend?
Walk ten minutes after lunch.
Before the opportunity
What constraints exist?
Rain, fatigue, work.
After the opportunity
What happened?
Completed, changed or not attempted.
End of day
What might explain it?
Meeting ran late; indoor option available.
Across days
What patterns emerge?
Actions differed when time was protected.
What it can and cannot show
Repeated observations may identify associations, but a diary can itself change behaviour. Memory, self-report bias, selection and confounding limit interpretation. Correlation is not causation.
Ethical boundaries
Formal human-participant research needs appropriate review, consent and privacy safeguards. Participation must be voluntary, with the ability to decline or withdraw. Sensitive workplace, relationship and health data should not be gathered casually. Personal diaries are not clinical assessments.
05 / Competing explanations
What else might explain the gap?
A framework earns value by remaining open to explanations that might weaken or replace its own claims.
Resources and opportunity
Time, money, childcare, transport, safety and access may constrain action even when intention is strong.
Disability and health
Pain, illness, fluctuating energy and inaccessible systems affect what is feasible. Missing action cannot diagnose anyone.
Changing priorities
New information and competing values can make a revised plan reasonable rather than unsuccessful.
Measurement problems
Vague goals, poor recall and arbitrary observation windows may create apparent gaps.
Power, rules, economic pressure and social expectations can make some actions costly or unavailable.
What would make IAG useful?
It would need to explain something existing approaches do not adequately capture, or offer a practical integration that can be tested. An attractive diagram is not proof of novelty. Measurement, falsifiable predictions, comparison and replication matter.
06 / A local reflection tool
The Friction Map
Map one intended action without judging yourself. Enter a goal, obstacle, observable next action and supportive context. Generate an editable reflection you can copy.
Map one action, not your entire personality.
No scores. No diagnosis. No account. No data transmitted by this page.
Your editable reflection
You can revise this text before copying. It is a prompt for thought, not an evaluation.
Privacy: Entries are processed in this browser page only; no cookies, local storage, tracking or network requests are used by the tool. Entries are not saved by the website. Browser extensions and device-level features are outside its control. Avoid entering sensitive information on shared devices.
07 / Field notes
The everyday world is complicated enough.
My interest in behaviour comes partly from ordinary work, not only management education or reading. In family retail, simple actions depend on inventory, customer expectations, trust, timing and limited attention.
Experimental perfumery offers another lens: understanding a formula is different from obtaining materials, practising, waiting and adjusting. These experiences generate questions; they do not validate a theory.
08 / FAQ
Questions and qualifications
Is IAG an established theory?
No. This is Sahil Tayal's proposed framework. Related questions have long been studied in behavioural science. Independent empirical validation of this formulation is not claimed.
Isn't this the intention–behaviour gap?
There is significant overlap. IAG explicitly separates self-concept, intention, observed action, friction, context and feedback. Whether that adds explanatory value is an open question.
Does not acting mean someone lacks discipline?
No such conclusion follows automatically. Opportunity, resources, disability, health, environment and revised priorities can all matter.
Can the Friction Map diagnose ADHD or depression?
No. It is a non-clinical writing exercise, not a diagnostic or psychometric instrument.
Does reducing friction always help?
No. Some barriers protect people from harmful actions, and some intended actions are no longer appropriate. Context and consequences matter.
Can a diary establish cause and effect?
Generally not by itself. It can reveal patterns but remains vulnerable to confounding, reporting bias and reactivity.
Are my tool entries saved?
Not by this website. The page does not persist or transmit them. Clipboard use copies text to your device; browser and device features may handle it separately.
09 / About
An independent inquiry.
I'm Sahil Tayal, an independent writer and interdisciplinary practitioner based in New Delhi. My background includes an MBA from Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies (JBIMS), experience with organisational behaviour, family retail and experimental perfumery.
This is an independent project. It does not represent JBIMS or any other institution, nor imply academic employment, endorsement, peer-reviewed validation or clinical expertise.
Observation describes experiences or patterns, which may be incomplete or biased.
Hypothesis means a proposed explanation that could be tested.
Established research refers to identifiable studies and research programmes interpreted with appropriate limitations.
Revision is welcome when stronger evidence or criticism warrants it. The aim is to ask better questions, not defend a permanent worldview.
10 / Intellectual context
Where this meets existing research
The intention–action problem is not new. Relevant traditions include the Theory of Planned Behavior, implementation intentions, habits, self-regulation and capability–opportunity approaches.
Sources to verify before a formal literature review: The following are research leads, not a completed bibliography or claims of endorsement. Verify original texts and interpretations before formal citation.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. American Psychologist.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., and West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A New Method for Characterising and Designing Behaviour Change Interventions. Implementation Science.
A stronger future version could include a documented review, operational definitions, preregistered methods and results if appropriate research is conducted.
11 / Explore the ecosystem
Different questions. One curious human.
A restrained collection of related independent projects.