Construct · 6 names · 7 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · five names, one construct Nearest construct by meaninguse behaviorcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to behavioral intention is use behavior.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
A person's subjective probability that they will perform a specified behaviour, the single immediate determinant of that behaviour in Fishbein and Ajzen's 1975 model, itself determined by attitude toward the behaviour and subjective norm. The theory defined intention as a probability judgment and required that it be measured at the same level of specificity as the behaviour, with the same action, target, context, and time. Every name on the rest of this map descends from this one, and most of them keep the definition word for word.[1]
Indications of how hard people are willing to try, and how much effort they plan to exert, to perform a behaviour, Ajzen's 1991 gloss, which shifted intention from a probability to a motivational readiness. The theory added perceived behavioural control as a third antecedent so that behaviours not fully under volitional control could be predicted. Intention is measured with items on intending, planning, and trying. The construct is the same as reasoned action's; what changed is what stands beside it.[2]
A plan of the form if situation X arises, then I will do Y, Gollwitzer's 1999 construct, defined in explicit contrast to the goal intention (I intend to do Y) that every other name on this map refers to. A goal intention specifies an end state; an implementation intention delegates control of the act to a pre-selected cue, so that the behaviour is triggered without further deliberation. Gollwitzer's evidence is experimental: people told to form the plan attain the goal more often than people with the same goal intention and no plan. It sits on this page as the neighbour most often confused with the construct, and it is not the construct.[3]
A user's intention to continue using an information system they have already adopted, Bhattacherjee's 2001 construct, modelled on consumer repurchase intention rather than on adoption. The model predicts it from satisfaction and post-usage perceived usefulness, with satisfaction driven by confirmation of expectations. The items ask about continuing versus discontinuing, and about continuing versus switching to an alternative. The definition is the acceptance construct with the word continue inserted, and Bhattacherjee's argument was that the insertion changes the antecedents.[4]
The dependent variable that Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis's 2003 unified model predicts from performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence, and that in turn predicts use behaviour alongside facilitating conditions. UTAUT took the three-item intention scale from TAM with the time horizon left in the items. UTAUT2 in 2012 kept the construct and its items for consumers, but let hedonic motivation, price value, and habit predict it, and let habit bypass it to affect use directly. The construct was never redefined; what grew was the list of things said to cause it.[5][6]
The degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to perform or not perform some specified future behaviour, the definition Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw took from Fishbein and Ajzen when they set TAM against the theory of reasoned action in 1989. The 1989 test measured intention twice, at introduction and fourteen weeks later, and found that intention predicted self-reported use and that usefulness, not attitude, was the main route to it. TAM's contribution was to make the antecedents system-specific; the intention construct arrived intact from social psychology.[7]
Next
Combine items across the behavioral intention scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct