ScholarWorks@성균관대학교

초록

Calls for field studies are justified when claims pertain to observed behavior. Problems arise, however, when that logic becomes an outcome hierarchy that treats intention evidence as categorically weaker, even when claims remain psychological. This article clarifies the reasons that support intention research, the limitations that bound what intention evidence can support, and the design directions that strengthen intention research. In turn, these considerations inform the development of a 4 C s framework for evaluating and strengthening the rigor of intention research. Claim checks whether what is stated aligns with what is observed. Correspondence checks fit between the intention measure and the target, action, context, and time window. Constraint checks enactment barriers. Corroboration treats intention findings as provisional evidence pending stronger behavioral checking before behavioral claims or implementation decisions are made. Tourism provides a running illustration for these standards, which apply across intention research.

키워드