The Gap Between Thinking and Behavior
You believe exercise is important. You've read the research. You understand the benefits. You genuinely intend to work out three times per week. You even have a gym membership.
Monday morning arrives. You're tired. The bed is warm. Work emails are already piling up. You'll go tomorrow instead. Tomorrow comes. Same story. Week ends. No workouts.
You think exercise matters. Your behavior says it doesn't.
This gap—between what people think, what they say they'll do, and what they actually do—is one of the most important and most overlooked aspects of human behavior. Intentions fail to translate into action. Stated preferences contradict revealed preferences. Beliefs and behaviors diverge wildly.
Understanding why this gap exists, what causes it, and how to close it is essential for changing behavior—yours and others'.
The Intention-Action Gap
Definition
Intention-action gap: The disconnect between what people intend or plan to do and what they actually do.
Also called:
- Value-action gap
- Intention-behavior gap
- Knowing-doing gap
Magnitude:
Research consistently shows:
- 20-30% of stated intentions become actions
- 70-80% of intentions don't translate to behavior
- Gap exists across domains (health, finance, relationships, work)
Example: Exercise intentions
Study (Rhodes & de Bruijn, 2013):
- 77% intended to exercise regularly
- Only 35% actually exercised regularly
- 42 percentage point gap between intention and action
Not unusual. Pattern repeats everywhere.
Why The Gap Exists
Reason 1: Present Bias
Future intentions formed with future self in mind.
Actions taken by present self facing immediate costs.
Temporal sequence:
Monday (planning):
- Friday workout seems easy
- Benefits feel salient
- Costs feel distant
- Form strong intention
Friday (action):
- Workout requires immediate effort
- Benefits are distant/abstract
- Costs are immediate/concrete
- Intention evaporates
Present bias (hyperbolic discounting):
- Immediate rewards/costs weigh disproportionately
- Future rewards/costs heavily discounted
- Present self prioritizes present comfort
- Future self was thinking about different future self
Result: Systematic gap between planning and doing.
Reason 2: Habit Strength vs. Intention Strength
Behavior is path-dependent.
Existing habits run automatically.
Intentions require conscious effort.
Competition:
Habit pathway:
- Cue → automatic response
- No deliberation required
- Energetically cheap
- Runs by default
Intention pathway:
- Remember intention
- Override habit
- Execute new behavior
- Energetically expensive
- Requires active engagement
Habits win most of the time.
Example: Checking phone
Intention: Reduce phone checking, be more present
Habit: Boredom/pause → reach for phone (thousands of repetitions)
Moment of boredom: Habit fires automatically before intention even registers
Result: Check phone despite intention not to
Reason 3: Environmental Cues Override Intentions
Context is powerful.
Environments trigger automatic responses.
Intentions exist in abstract; behavior in concrete situations.
Example: Healthy eating
Intention: Eat healthy
Environment: Donuts in break room, vending machines visible, colleagues ordering pizza
Cues: Visual (donuts), social (others eating), accessibility (right there)
Result: Intentions lose to environmental triggers
Research (Sheeran et al.):
Intention-behavior correlations:
- In supportive environments: r = 0.53 (moderate-strong)
- In challenging environments: r = 0.21 (weak)
Environment determines whether intentions matter.
Reason 4: Competing Goals
Intentions don't exist in isolation.
Multiple goals compete for limited resources (time, energy, attention).
Example: Typical competing goals
State intention: "I'll work on strategic projects this week"
Competing goals:
- Urgent email responses (immediate consequences)
- Meeting requests (social pressure)
- Operational fires (visible problems)
- Easier tasks (sense of progress)
Result: Strategic work perpetually deferred. Never explicitly abandoned, just always loses to competitors.
Reason 5: Implementation Details Missing
Vague intentions don't translate to specific actions.
"I should exercise more" lacks:
- When? (specific day/time)
- Where? (specific location)
- How? (specific activity)
- What if interrupted? (contingency plan)
Result: Good intentions with no execution path.
Reason 6: Social Desirability Bias
What people say reflects:
- How they want to be perceived
- Their ideal self-image
- Social norms and expectations
What people do reflects:
- Actual priorities
- Real constraints
- True preferences
These often differ.
Example: Charitable giving
Survey: "Do you support X cause? Would you donate?"
- 80% say yes (sounds good, want to appear generous)
Reality: Donation solicitation
- 15% actually donate
Gap reflects social desirability (saying "right" thing) vs. revealed preference (actual choice).
Stated vs. Revealed Preferences
The Distinction
Stated preferences: What people say they want
Revealed preferences: What people's actual choices show they want
Economics insight: Behavior reveals true preferences more reliably than statements.
Example: Work-life balance
Stated preference: "Work-life balance is my top priority. Family comes first."
Revealed preference (behavior):
- Works 60-hour weeks consistently
- Checks email during family time
- Cancels family plans for work
- Accepts promotions requiring more hours
Actual priority: Career advancement/achievement (revealed), not work-life balance (stated)
Why they differ:
| Factor | Effect |
|---|---|
| Self-deception | People believe their stated preferences (aspirational self) |
| Social pressure | State what's socially acceptable |
| Lack of awareness | Don't realize actual priorities until forced to choose |
| Changing contexts | Different selves (planning vs. doing) |
Applications
When predicting behavior:
Don't ask: "What do you intend to do?"
Watch: What do they actually do when faced with choice?
Market research example:
Stated: "I'd buy electric car, willing to pay premium for sustainability"
Revealed: When actually purchasing, majority choose cheaper gas car
Stated preferences overestimate green purchasing, innovation adoption, price sensitivity.
Behavior reveals truth.
What Actually Predicts Behavior
Predictor 1: Past Behavior
Best predictor of future behavior: Past behavior.
Not intentions. Not stated preferences. Past actions.
Research (Ouellette & Wood, 1998):
Frequent behaviors:
- Past behavior R² = 0.50 (explains 50% of variance)
- Intentions R² = 0.10 (explains 10% of variance)
Past behavior 5x more predictive than intentions for habitual actions.
Why:
- Habits persist
- Situations recur
- Paths already exist
- Momentum continues
Implication: Want to predict behavior? Look at track record, not stated intentions.
Predictor 2: Implementation Intentions
Generic intention: "I will exercise"
Implementation intention: "If it's Monday/Wednesday/Friday at 7am, then I will go to gym and do 30-minute workout"
Specific trigger + specific action = dramatically better follow-through.
Research (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006):
Meta-analysis: Implementation intentions increase action rates by average of 54%
Why they work:
- Link cue to action
- Reduce deliberation ("Should I?")
- Automate execution
- Don't rely on motivation in moment
Predictor 3: Environmental Design
Behavior follows path of least resistance.
Default actions happen.
Friction prevents action.
Predictive factors:
| Environmental Feature | Effect on Behavior |
|---|---|
| Visibility | Visible cues trigger action |
| Accessibility | Easy actions happen more |
| Defaults | Default choice wins 80%+ |
| Friction | Each obstacle reduces action ~50% |
| Social proof | Visible others' behavior influences own |
Environment design predicts behavior better than personal intentions.
Predictor 4: Immediate Context
Momentary factors often outweigh stable intentions:
| Context Factor | Behavior Impact |
|---|---|
| Current mood | Bad mood → present comfort prioritized |
| Cognitive load | Mental exhaustion → defaults win |
| Social situation | Others' behavior influences own |
| Time pressure | Rushed → habits/heuristics dominate |
| Decision fatigue | Later in day → lower willpower |
Behavior predictions must account for context at moment of action.
Cognitive Dissonance
The Discomfort
Cognitive dissonance: Psychological discomfort from holding contradictory beliefs or when actions contradict stated values.
Classic form:
I believe X (e.g., "Honesty is important")
I did Y (e.g., lied to client)
X ≠ Y → Dissonance → Discomfort
Resolution strategies:
1. Change behavior (hard)
- Start acting consistently with belief
- Requires effort and discomfort
2. Change belief (easier)
- Rationalize behavior
- Redefine what belief means
- "Everyone does it"
- "It's not really lying"
3. Add consonant cognitions (easiest)
- Find justifying factors
- "But they would have been upset by truth"
- "I was protecting them"
- "It was for their own good"
4. Trivialize (common)
- "It doesn't really matter"
- "Not a big deal"
Usually: People adjust beliefs to match behavior rather than changing behavior to match beliefs.
Result: Gap between thinking and behavior gets rationalized rather than closed.
Example: Smoker
Belief: Smoking causes cancer, I should quit
Behavior: Continues smoking
Dissonance resolution:
- "I don't smoke that much" (minimize)
- "My grandfather smoked and lived to 90" (exception seeking)
- "We all die of something" (trivialize)
- "I'll quit soon" (future resolve)
Belief nominally unchanged, but interpretations shift to reduce dissonance with behavior.
Closing the Gap
Strategy 1: Make It Specific
Replace vague intentions with concrete implementation plans.
Framework:
Vague: "I should [behavior]"
Specific: "When [situation], I will [action]"
Examples:
| Vague Intention | Implementation Intention |
|---|---|
| "I'll eat healthier" | "When I go grocery shopping Sunday, I will buy vegetables and avoid cookie aisle" |
| "I'll save money" | "When I get paid, I will automatically transfer 15% to savings before seeing it" |
| "I'll be more productive" | "When I arrive at work, I will work on most important task for first hour before checking email" |
Strategy 2: Design Your Environment
Don't fight environment. Change it.
Principles:
Remove temptation: Out of sight, out of mind
- Want to eat less junk? Don't buy it. Can't eat what's not there.
- Want to reduce phone use? Put phone in other room.
Make good choices easy:
- Gym clothes laid out night before
- Healthy snacks visible, accessible
- Important work clearly defined and ready
Add friction to bad choices:
- Cookie jar on high shelf (effort required)
- Delete social media apps (re-download required)
- TV remote in closet (deliberate choice needed)
Use defaults:
- Auto-save from paycheck
- Default calendar blocks for deep work
- Recurring scheduled activities
Strategy 3: Use Commitment Devices
Constrain future self to follow through.
Types:
Financial stakes:
- Bet money on goal (lose money if fail)
- StickK, Beeminder (money at risk)
Social accountability:
- Public commitment
- Workout partner
- Coach/accountability buddy
Advance commitment:
- Schedule appointment (cancellation cost)
- Prepay (sunk cost motivates attendance)
- Sign contract
Access restriction:
- Time-lock safe (can't access until time)
- Website blockers (remove access)
- Give friend item you're trying to avoid
Strategy 4: Build Habits, Not Just Intentions
Habits bypass intention-action gap.
Automatic behavior doesn't require willpower.
Habit formation process:
1. Cue: Consistent trigger 2. Routine: Simple action 3. Reward: Immediate positive feedback 4. Repetition: Consistent practice until automatic
Example: Exercise habit
Cue: Alarm at 6:30am Routine: Put on gym clothes, drive to gym Reward: Feel energized, track workout (visible progress) Repetition: Daily for 66 days (average habit formation time)
Result: Exercising becomes automatic response to alarm, doesn't require daily decision/motivation.**
Strategy 5: Recognize Competing Priorities
You can't do everything.
Stated intentions often contradict each other.
Exercise:
List all stated priorities/intentions.
Force rank: If you could only do one, which?
Eliminate: Bottom 50-80%
Reality: Your actual behavior already did this ranking. Make it conscious and intentional.
Example:
Stated priorities: Career success, fitness, family time, hobbies, social life, learning, side project
Forced ranking reveals: Career success, family time are actual priorities
Implication: Other intentions were aspirational. Eliminate or accept they're not really priorities right now.
Clarity: Behavior will align when conscious priorities match actual priorities.
Implications
For Individuals
1. Don't trust your intentions
- Your future self will face different constraints
- Plan as if you're lazy (you are, we all are)
- Design for actual you, not ideal you
2. Watch your behavior
- What do you actually do?
- That reveals true priorities
- Adjust stated priorities to match or change behavior
3. Make it easy
- Environment > willpower
- Defaults > decisions
- Habits > intentions
For Organizations
1. Don't trust stated preferences
- Surveys lie (not intentionally, but predictably)
- Watch behavior instead
- A/B test, don't just ask
2. Make desired behavior default
- Opt-out beats opt-in dramatically
- Auto-enrollment works
- Default to good choice
3. Reduce friction
- Every step reduces completion rate
- Simplify processes
- Remove obstacles
For Researchers/Analysts
1. Revealed preferences > stated preferences
- What people do > what people say
- Purchase data > survey responses
- Actual behavior > intended behavior
2. Context matters enormously
- Intentions in surveys ≠ behavior in real situations
- Account for present bias
- Test in realistic conditions
Conclusion: Behavior Reveals Truth
The gap between thinking and behavior is not a bug.
It's a feature of how humans work.
Intentions reflect:
- Aspirational self
- Planning mindset
- Social desirability
- Future orientation
Behavior reflects:
- Actual priorities
- Present constraints
- Real trade-offs
- True preferences
Key insights:
- Intention-action gap is large (70-80% of intentions don't become actions)
- Present bias creates gap (planning ≠ doing)
- Habits beat intentions (automatic > deliberate)
- Environment determines behavior (context > willpower)
- Past behavior predicts future (track record > stated plans)
- Revealed preferences are real (behavior shows true priorities)
- Cognitive dissonance gets rationalized (beliefs adjusted to match behavior)
The path forward:
Accept the gap:
- It's normal, universal, predictable
- Plan for it rather than denying it
Close it:
- Implementation intentions (specific triggers + actions)
- Environmental design (make good choices easy)
- Commitment devices (constrain future self)
- Habit formation (bypass deliberation)
- Honest prioritization (admit actual priorities)
Judge by behavior:
- Yours and others'
- Actions reveal truth more than words
- Revealed preferences > stated preferences
Your behavior is telling the truth about your priorities.
Your intentions are stories you tell yourself.
Close the gap by making stories match reality, or changing reality to match stories.
But don't pretend the gap doesn't exist.
References
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). "The Intention–Behavior Gap." Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518.
Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2013). "How Big Is the Physical Activity Intention–Behaviour Gap? A Meta-Analysis Using the Action Control Framework." British Journal of Health Psychology, 18(2), 296–309.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). "Implementation Intentions and Goal Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Effects and Processes." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). "Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior." Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54–74.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Samuelson, P. A. (1938). "A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer's Behaviour." Economica, 5(17), 61–71.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review." Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). "An Economic Theory of Self-Control." Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). "A New Look at Habits and the Habit-Goal Interface." Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863.
Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). "How Are Habits Formed: Modelling Habit Formation in the Real World." European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009.
Duckworth, A. L., Milkman, K. L., & Laibson, D. (2018). "Beyond Willpower: Strategies for Reducing Failures of Self-Control." Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(3), 102–129.
Neal, D. T., Wood, W., Wu, M., & Kurlander, D. (2011). "The Pull of the Past: When Do Habits Persist Despite Conflict With Motives?" Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1428–1437.
Bem, D. J. (1972). "Self-Perception Theory." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk." Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). "Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment." Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224.
About This Series: This article is part of a larger exploration of psychology and behavior. For related concepts, see [Why Intentions Do Not Predict Actions], [Cognitive Biases Explained], [Behavioral Economics Explained Simply], and [How the Mind Actually Works].