comparative analysis of intention theories
DESCRIPTION
Presentation on the topic 'Comparative Analysis of Intention Theories' done as part of the requirement for the course "Philosophy of Research"TRANSCRIPT
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…