“You Can't Always Get What You Want”: A Novel Research Paradigm to Explore the Relationship between Multiple Intentions and Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research investigating cognitive moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship and psychological consequences of failure to enact intentions is usually conducted in a single-behaviour paradigm. A multiple-behaviour paradigm is introduced which overcomes bias inherent to single-behaviour designs and allows testing of novel hypotheses. Two exploratory studies illustrate the utility of this new paradigm by investigating the role of cognitive predictors and psychological correlates of intention-behaviour relationships. METHOD: The proposed method involves measuring multiple intentions across common areas of life activity at baseline and corresponding behaviours at follow-up. In two studies, 51 intentions and behaviours were assessed (49 by self-report, 2 objectively). In Study 1, participants (n = 126) also completed self-reported measures of everyday cognitive failures and dysexecutive behaviours, crystallised intelligence (Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale) at baseline and Quality of Life (QoL; follow-up). In Study 2, objective executive function measures (Stroop, Go/NoGo task and Word Fluency test) were completed by N = 30 participants. RESULTS: The total number of intentions, cognitive, and QoL measures were unrelated to the percentage of intentions enacted. Crystallised intelligence was related to successful intention implementation and problems with emotion regulation were associated with forming fewer intentions and with fewer failed intentions. QoL was strongly related with more intentions, regardless of whether or not these were implemented. Study 2 showed that cognitive flexibility (word fluency) and task errors, rather than Stroop effect and Go/No-Go performance were related, to intention-behaviour congruence. CONCLUSION: Intention-behaviour relationships might be better understood when considering the multiple intentions and behaviours that people are engaged in at once at any one point in time. A multiple-behaviour paradigm suggests novel hypotheses. Preliminary findings reported here require replication. Anticipated applications of the paradigm are outlined and discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".