THE RESEARCH DESKSAHIL TAYAL / WORKING PAPERS sahiltayal.com
INDEPENDENT RESEARCH / NON-PEER-REVIEWED

Between who we say we are, and what we do.

The Identity–Action Gap is a question, not a verdict. Explore how intention, friction, incentives, and opportunity interact—and how to study them without reducing people to a score.

Download the 19-page fieldbook Enter the friction lab

Free PDF · actual downloadable file · no sign-up · published within the sahiltayal.com universe

THEORY IS CHEAP. GOOD TESTS ARE HARD.SCROLL TO DECONSTRUCT

01 / THE LENS

An action is a situated event.
Not a personality report.

People can sincerely value a goal and still face inaccessible opportunities, conflicting obligations, unclear cues, or changing priorities. Those differences are the research problem—not proof of defective character.

01—A
I

Identity

Who someone understands themselves to be. A value or self-description is not yet a behavioural measurement.

SELF-DESCRIPTION
01—B
→

Intention

What someone plans to do, preferably with a specific action, timing, and a meaningful opportunity.

PROSPECTIVE CLAIM
01—C
◎

Context

Time, safety, resources, permissions, cues, support and rival obligations. What actually makes action possible?

OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE
01—D
✓

Action

The observable next step. Its timing, quality, and opportunity denominator all affect interpretation.

OBSERVABLE EVENT
THE RESEARCH RULEBefore explaining a gap, define what would count as an opportunity to act.Build a study

02 / THE FRICTION LABORATORY

Change the conditions.
Change the question.

This interactive thought experiment highlights mechanisms worth investigating. It does not calculate someone’s real likelihood of success or predict their behaviour.

EXPERIMENT CONSOLEILLUSTRATIVE, NOT PREDICTIVE
CHOOSE A SITUATION
Easy to beginMany barriers
No clear momentSpecific if–then
Little availableAmple resources
All choices stay in your browser.

OBSERVATIONAL LENS / UPDATED LIVE

The bottleneck may be elsewhere.

A creative intention can remain sincere while missing the time, tools or transition needed to begin.

Ease of startingModerate
Action cue clarityLow
Available capacityLow
TESTABLE QUESTION

Does removing the first setup step change the number of eligible opportunities that lead to an attempt?

These bars represent your selected inputs, not measured performance. No probabilities, scores, or participant data are generated.

03 / OPEN TO DISCONFIRMATION

Four propositions.
No sacred cows.

Select a working hypothesis to see what it predicts, what else could explain the same observation, and what might count against it.

WORKING PROPOSITION / P—01NOT YET VALIDATED HERE

Removing avoidable friction may improve initiation.

Simplifying a feasible task might change how often people start, even when reported intention stays similar.

PREDICTION

RIVAL EXPLANATION

POSSIBLE DISCONFIRMATION

MEASUREMENT CHOICE

04 / A METHOD YOU CAN TAKE AWAY

Build a question
worth investigating.

Generate a small, cautious protocol. Copy the result or save it as Markdown. This tool stays local; it sends nothing to a server.

FIELD NOTE / DRAFT PROTOCOLLOCAL ONLY

A better research question begins with definitions.

Choose a setting, mechanism and evidence approach, then assemble your own study sketch.

Each result includes an observable outcome, a counter-explanation, and a responsible reporting note.

05 / THE REAL TAKEAWAY

Leave with more
than an impression.

A proper 19-page A4 fieldbook to read, annotate, print or share. Designed to help curious visitors think more clearly about behaviour—not just admire a landing page.

  • Four mechanisms and falsifiable propositions
  • Three research protocols with safeguards
  • Four reusable critique and observation worksheets
  • A 14-day opportunity diary
  • One fictional case study plus verifiable references
Download the free fieldbook · PDF

19 pages · 113 KB approx · no email required · Sahil Tayal universe

06 / THE EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Inquiry is strongest
when it names its debts.

These published works illuminate adjacent topics. They are not claimed as validations of Sahil Tayal’s specific Identity–Action Gap propositions.

2002Intention–Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical ReviewPaschal Sheeran · review of intention–behaviour relations 2006Does Changing Behavioral Intentions Engender Behavior Change?Webb & Sheeran · meta-analysis of experimental evidence 2006Implementation Intentions and Goal AchievementGollwitzer & Sheeran · meta-analysis of effects and processes 2009A Behavior Model for Persuasive DesignB. J. Fogg · motivation, ability and prompt

Status: independent conceptual working research, not peer-reviewed. Illustrations and interactive examples are invented to aid understanding. No behavioural outcome data have been collected by this page.

END NOTE / OPEN DOOR

Disagree thoughtfully.
Bring a counterexample.

Stronger questions are built in conversation. Send a critique, a rival explanation, or an idea for a careful study.

Write to Sahil Explore sahiltayal.com

sahil@sahiltayal.com