Relook on“Comparative

analysis of intention theories”

Aravind Sesagiri Raamkumar

Agenda

• Introduction to Intention theories

• Problem Identification

• Critique

• Conclusion

Intention Theories

Human Intentio

ns

Psychology

Cognitive Science

Computer Science

Philosophy

Social Psychology

Folk Psychology

Use these theories to build a conceptual model for social tagging systems

Normal Approach

• Go through the theories and compare them (not paying much attention to discipline) using dimensions such as Methodology, Research Methods, Parent Theories, Citation History etc

• Select the one that appears closest to our research context

• Build a conceptual model on top of the selected theory

• Conduct research to see if the model fits• ….

What’s the problem then?

• Which theory is complete?• Which theory is universal?• Which theory has empirical backing?• Which theory has been extended by other

researchers?

• What assumptions do these theories take and what are the implications?

• Does the nature of the discipline play a significant role when assessing a theory?

• Are there any hidden dimensions that significantly differentiates the selected theories?

Selected TheoriesTheory of Reasoned ActionTheory of Planned Behavior

Folk Concept of Intentionality

Discerning Intentions in dynamic human action

Intentionality of Intention and Action

Belief Desire Intention model

Theory of Reasoned Action /

Theory of Planned Behavior

Folk Concept of

Intentionality

Discerning intentions in

dynamic action

Intentionality of

intentions and actions

Attitude towards the behavior

Belief Desire Intention

Model

Subjective Norms

Intention Behavior

Belief

Desire

Intentions Intentionality

Skill

Awareness

BeliefDesire

3 types of Knowledge Structure

Detection

Intentions

Belief

Desire

Intention Action

Belief

Desire

Prior IntentionsIntentional

Action

Perceived Behavior Control

Game based Experiment

Language understanding based Survey

Experiments &

Conceptual

Conceptual

Conceptual

Method Perspective

Discerning intentions in

dynamic action

Intentionality of

intentions and actions

Belief Desire Intention

Model

Theory of Reasoned Action /

Theory of Planned Behavior

Folk Concept of

Intentionality

Assumptions• Intentions are prerequisite for behavior -> CHALLENGED

Assumptions• No prior knowledge of the person is needed to infer

intentionality -> CHALLENGABLE• The questions try to infer the presence of the factors

by analysing the texts -> HIGHLY CHALLENGABLE• Study is reliant on people's perception about human

actions• Everyone can interpret language in the same way ->

HIGHLY CHALLENGABLEAssumptions• Intentions are not isomorphic with action i.e.

an action can be related to many intentions• An action is split into many steps

Assumptions• Intention is mapped to a action

Assumptions• No data given on how beliefs change -

CHALLENGABLE• Desires are already known and fixed -

DEBATABLE

CHALLENGABLE NATURE OF ASSUMPTIONS• Componen

t -based

• Language -based

• Similarity in people

• Component –based

• Reality -based

• Component -based

• Component –based

• Definition -based

Discerning intentions in

dynamic action

Intentionality of

intentions and actions

Belief Desire Intention

Model

Theory of Reasoned Action /

Theory of Planned Behavior

Folk Concept of

Intentionality

Weakness & Limitations (W&L)• Behavioral intention is seen as “weighted sum” of two variables

Weakness & Limitations• Perception of intentionality based only on western

culture• Uses explicated language for testing. Not reality

based.

Weakness & Limitations• Works only when action is observed from start

to end• Seemingly doesn’t differentiate between

intention and intentionality

Weakness & Limitations• Generalistic

Weakness & Limitations• Definition of Beliefs and Desires is not

generalizable• Intention is always seen as a commitment to

the action

IMPLICATIONS• Pro-

positivism

• Universality is affected

• Can be used in linguistic studies

• Generalizability is affected

• Applicability to online world

• Generalizability is affected

PURPOSE OF THEORY

PREDICTIVE

DESCRIPTIVE & EXPLANATORY

DESCRIPTIVE

DESCRIPTIVE & EXPLANATORY

DESCRIPTIVE & EXPLANATORY

Cross-referencing

Theory of Reasoned

Action/Planned Behavior

Discerning

intentions from

dynamic action

Intentionality of

intention and action

Folk Concept of Intentionali

ty

Belief Desire

Intention Model

Cognitive Science

Current Conclusions What assumptions do these theories take and what are the

implications?If the assumptions are Component-based , they cannot be taken lightly. Universality and Generalizability factors are affected as a part of implications of weakness and limitations of the theory.

Does the nature of the discipline play a significant role when assessing a theory?

Yes, the perspective and type of research methods are contingent on the discipline. Type of evidence also differs – Empirical vs Conceptual

Are there any hidden dimensions that significantly differentiates the selected theories?

Perspective and ‘Nature of assumptions’ are two hidden dimensions that are to be considered

There cannot be a single intention model – there needs to be separate intention and intentionality model for conducting research

There is no single perfect model/theory but it is debatable to combine components from models of different disciplines. They have to be tested if combined.

Brickbats & suggestions…