Construct · 5 fields · 9 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningbehavioral intentioncompare 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 intent is behavioral intention.
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 fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The mental state the prosecution must prove alongside the prohibited act. The Model Penal Code of 1962 replaced a tangle of common-law terms with four graded levels (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) and, in Robinson and Grall's phrase, made culpability an element-by-element question: the required state attaches separately to conduct, circumstances, and result. Morissette held in 1952 that the requirement is so rooted in Anglo-American law that a silent statute is read to include it. Intent here is a threshold a fact-finder must be satisfied of beyond reasonable doubt, and "intent" in the narrow meaning is only the top rung.[1][2][3]
What the parties meant to agree, judged not by what either privately had in mind but by what a reasonable person in the other's position would take their words and conduct to mean. The objective theory displaced the older "meeting of the minds" in the late nineteenth century (Perillo traces it to Holmes and to earlier equity practice) and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts fixed it as the manifestation of assent. Farnsworth's treatise carries it through interpretation: a term means what the parties objectively manifested, with subjective intent admitted only when both shared it. Intent here is a social fact about outward signs, and a party can be bound to an intent they never had.[4]
A distinctive mental state that settles what an agent will do, not reducible to a belief plus a desire. Anscombe opened the modern debate in 1957 by distinguishing intention for the future, intention in acting, and intentional action, and by asking what makes the question "Why?" apply to a piece of behaviour. Bratman answered in 1987 that intentions are elements of partial plans: they resist reconsideration, pose problems for further deliberation, and filter what else the agent can rationally intend. The construct is defined by its role in practical reasoning over time, and the theory's home ground is a single agent coordinating with their own future self.[5][6]
A person's subjective probability that they will perform a behaviour, positioned as the immediate antecedent of the behaviour itself. Fishbein and Ajzen fixed it in 1975 as the single mediator between attitude and subjective norm on one side and action on the other; Ajzen added perceived behavioural control in 1991 and the theory of planned behaviour became the template for TAM and UTAUT. Intention here is a Likert-scaled self-report ("I intend to use the system in the next month") and its validity rests on how well it predicts later use. It is a forecast, not a plan or a culpable state, and it is the only meaning on this map with a psychometric instrument.[7][8]
The need behind a search query, inferred from the query and its context. Broder argued in 2002 that web search had broken the classic model in which a query expresses an information need: users also search to reach a particular site (navigational) or to do something there (transactional), and only informational queries fit the old picture. His taxonomy came from a user survey and a log sample, and search engines now infer the class from the query alone to decide what kind of result page to build. Intent here is a property of a query aggregated over many anonymous users, with no individual asked and no fixed label set beyond the three.[9]
Next
Combine items across the intent 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