Exocium
People act on about half of what they intend.
Direct answer: The intention–behavior gap is the measured distance between intending to act and actually acting. Across 422 studies and 82,107 people, intentions accounted for 28% of the variance in later behavior (Sheeran, 2002). Sheeran and Webb (2016) summarize the evidence as intentions being translated into action about half the time. In experiments, a medium-to-large increase in intention (d = 0.66) produced only a small-to-medium change in behavior (d = 0.36) across 47 tests and 8,802 people (Webb & Sheeran, 2006).
Sheeran and Webb (2016) call if-then plans — implementation intentions — one of the most widely researched and best-validated tools for turning an intention into action. They are not the only tool. The same review also names progress monitoring. Gollwitzer (1999) specified the form: if situation Y occurs, then I will do X. The plan names the cue and the response before the moment arrives. Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) found a medium-to-large effect on goal attainment across 94 independent tests (d = 0.65). The proposed reason is mechanical. The cue becomes easy to notice, and the response is already tied to it, so the situation starts the action instead of another round of deciding.
Exocium is built on that pair of mechanisms. The Daily Blueprint places the work in the day before it starts. Operate then asks for an optional day pledge and a one-tap pledge on the block itself — “I will finish: this block” — so the block is the cue and the finish is the response. Operator Debrief and the Commitment Verdict record what was actually dispatched, which is the monitoring side of the same problem. The studies above tested if-then plans and progress monitoring in research settings. They are not an efficacy trial of Exocium. Exocium is not a medical treatment.
What is the intention–behavior gap?
The intention–behavior gap is the distance between intending to do something and subsequently doing it. Sheeran and Webb (2016) describe it as intentions being translated into action about half the time.
How much of behavior do intentions explain?
Sheeran (2002) found that intentions account for 28% of the variance in behavior across 422 studies and 82,107 people. Webb and Sheeran (2006) found that experimentally increasing intention (d = 0.66) changes behavior by a smaller amount (d = 0.36).
Does failing to follow through mean a person is lazy?
No. The studies followed people who already intended to act. Orbell and Sheeran (1998) called those who still did not act inclined abstainers. The open problem is translating the intention into initiation, protection, and completion.
What is an implementation intention?
An implementation intention is an if-then plan: if situation Y occurs, then I will do X (Gollwitzer, 1999). Across 94 tests, forming that plan improved goal attainment by d = 0.65 compared with holding a goal intention alone (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). It is one of the best-validated bridges of the gap, not the only one.
How does Exocium use if-then planning?
The Daily Blueprint places work in the day before it starts. Operate binds a response to that block with a pledge — “I will finish: this block” — so the block can start the work. Operator Debrief and the Commitment Verdict record what was actually done. The published if-then studies are not an efficacy trial of Exocium.