Intention and opposing intention

Hook (story-led, ~120 words) Rania promised herself: “One video every Friday.” By Thursday night the edit was 95% done—and that’s when the “other voice” got loud: What if it flops? Maybe polish it more. Maybe publish next week. She wasn’t lazy; she was in a goal conflict. One intention said “ship”; a second, quieter intention said “avoid judgment.” The closer she got to the finish line, the stronger that “avoid” impulse felt. Once she mapped the conflict and installed two small tools—WOOP to face the real obstacle and if-then cues to make starting automatic—Fridays got weirdly simple. Same talent, different design. That’s the work here: align intention with action, even when an opposing intention is pulling the other way.

TL;DR: “Opposing intention” is usually goal conflict/ambivalence amplified by mechanisms like approach–avoidance, reactance, and ironic rebound. The fix: map the conflict → run MCII/WOOP → wire implementation intentions → add autonomy & feedback. These have solid evidence behind them. ResearchGate+5PMC+5ScienceDirect+5

Early CTA: Turn insight into a 10-minute plan: Download the Intention Alignment Kit (conflict map + WOOP + if-then templates).

What “Opposing Intention” Really Means

In behavioral science, intention isn’t a vibe; it’s a commitment to act influenced by your attitudes, social norms, and perceived control—the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). You can have a strong intention and still fail to act when context or control is low. ScienceDirect

What you’re calling an “opposing intention” is usually goal conflict/ambivalence: a focal goal (publish) and a counter-goal (avoid social risk, preserve energy, keep options open) compete for control. Goal-systems research shows competing goals inhibit each other; activating one dampens the other—often subconsciously. PMC

Ambivalence isn’t weakness; it’s information: you care about two values (e.g., craft and safety). Understanding this prevents shame and helps you design better rules. ScienceDirect

Why Good Intentions Collide (Mechanisms You Can Design Around)

1) Approach–Avoidance conflict ramps near the finish. Classic motivation work shows that as you approach a desired goal, avoidance tendencies (risk of failure, visibility, effort surge) can spike, slowing action or triggering last-minute delay. If you’ve ever polished forever or “just moved the deadline,” you’ve felt it. Design for this slope. ScienceDirect

2) Ironic rebound from suppression. Telling yourself “don’t think about failing” increases the salience of failure ideas; meta-analyses confirm paradoxical after-effects of suppression (the “white bear” problem). Relying on suppression creates more of what you’re avoiding. Use defusion or replacement cues instead. PubMed

3) Psychological reactance. When change feels controlling (“I must publish or I’m worthless”), your brain defends autonomy by pushing back—often via procrastination or doing the opposite. You need self-authored rules and choices to keep reactance low. ResearchGate

4) Structural inhibition among competing goals. Your system links goals and means; lateral inhibition makes a competing goal quieter only when the focal one is well-specified and shielded. If everything is a priority, nothing acts. PMC

The 4-Step Intention Alignment Plan

Think of this as Name → Contrast → Cue → Review.

Step 1 — Map the Conflict (7 minutes)

Create a quick Conflict Map:

• Focal goal: Publish one video every Friday.
• Counter-goal (what it protects): Avoid public embarrassment (protect status/identity).
• Triggers that energize the counter-goal: Close to publish; comments; low sleep; past flop memory.
• Hidden payoffs: Short-term relief, “more time to polish,” illusion of control.
• Costs: Zero audience learning; drift; identity dissonance.

This is Goal-Systems work—naming the lateral competitor so you can engineer around it instead of fighting fog. PMC

Micro-win today: Decide one 4-week outcome you control (e.g., “4 uploads in 4 weeks,” not “go viral”). TPB says perceived control matters; make it controllable. ScienceDirect

Step 2 — Run MCII/WOOP (10 minutes)

WOOP = Wish → Outcome → Obstacle → Plan:

• Wish: 4 uploads in 4 weeks.
• Outcome: Authority + 2 inbound leads.
• Obstacle (inner): “Last-mile fear → endless polishing.”
• Plan (if-then preview): If it’s Friday 17:00 then I run the 3-step publish checklist and hit upload.

Why it works: Mental contrasting turns vague positivity into energy by pairing the desired future with the real obstacle; adding a plan activates goal pursuit only when the goal is feasible and valued—otherwise it prevents wasted effort. PMC+1

[FIGURE: WOOP worksheet filled with the example.]

Step 3 — Wire Implementation Intentions (If-Then Cues) (10 minutes)

Create 5–7 tiny cue→action links for the week:

• If Friday 16:30 then open “Publish Checklist” and tick the first box.
• If I think “Maybe next week” then read the 2-line defusion card and resume checklist.
• If YouTube comments tab opens then close it and finish thumbnail first.
• If 19:00 and I haven’t shipped then publish the best available version (rule: iteration beats perfection).

Why it works: Meta-analyses find medium-to-large effects for implementation intentions on goal attainment and on initiating the behavior at the right moment. They’re especially helpful when the task is effortful and conditions vary—like creative work. ResearchGate+1

[FIGURE: If-Then trigger map linking risky situations to tiny actions.]

Step 4 — Add Autonomy & Feedback (15 minutes weekly)

• Autonomy script: Rewrite your goal statement in choice language (“I choose to publish weekly because X”), not threat language (“I have to or else”). Cuts reactance and preserves motivation. ResearchGate
• Weekly review: What cue worked? Where did avoidance spike? One tweak next week.
• Self-efficacy bank: Log mastery experiences (instances you acted despite discomfort). TPB + motivation research show perceived control fuels future intentions. ScienceDirect

Pull-quote: You don’t beat an opposing intention with willpower; you out-design it.

Mini Case Studies (Realistic Scenarios)

Case 1 — The 95% Finisher (Creator)

• Before: 0/6 weeks shipped; last-mile polishing + doom-scrolling.
• Intervention (4 weeks): Conflict Map (counter-goal = avoid public error); WOOP obstacle = last-mile fear; If-Then: “Fri 17:00 → checklist → upload.”
• After: 4/4 uploads shipped; avg publish time: 22:10 → 18:05; two inbound inquiries.
• Mechanism: Reduced approach–avoidance spike and rebound; reliable cueing. ScienceDirect+1

Case 2 — The Outreach Avoider (SDR)

• Before: Intends 10 meetings/month; avoids after rejections.
• Intervention (6 weeks): Conflict Map (counter-goal = protect self-image); WOOP obstacle = “post-rejection slump”; If-Then: “Rejection email → 2-minute walk + send next template.” Autonomy language added to cut reactance.
• After: 61 qualified touches; 12 meetings booked; pipeline +€14k.
• Mechanism: MCII faced the emotional obstacle; if-then automated the recovery behavior; autonomy framing reduced pushback. PMC+2ResearchGate+2

FAQs

Is “opposing intention” just self-sabotage? Not exactly. It’s typically goal conflict or ambivalence—two values pulling in different directions (e.g., excellence vs safety). Name both; design rules that serve the higher-order value (e.g., learning through shipping). ScienceDirect

Why does “don’t think about it” fail? Suppression often backfires (the ironic rebound). Replace suppression with defusion (“I’m having the thought that…”) or WOOP (face obstacle + plan). PubMed+1

Do if-then plans really work? Yes. Multiple meta-analyses show medium-to-large effects on goal attainment and timely action. They’re simple, especially for “last-mile” resistance. ResearchGate+1

What if rules make me rebel? That’s reactance. Use self-authored goals (“I choose…”) and offer menus of actions so you keep freedom while moving the needle. ResearchGate

Final Thoughts + Your 10-Minute Start

Opposing intention isn’t a character flaw; it’s a design problem. Map the conflict, contrast the wish with the real obstacle, wire a few if-then cues, and review weekly. Give yourself ten minutes now—future-you will inherit less friction and more momentum.

End CTA: Grab the Intention Alignment Kit—conflict map, WOOP sheet, and if-then planner. Start tonight.

Sources

• Theory of Planned Behavior (intentions; perceived control). ScienceDirect
• Goal Systems & inhibition (competing goals dampen each other). PMC
• Ambivalence (affective/behavioral/cognitive consequences). ScienceDirect
• Approach–avoidance conflict (near-goal slowdowns). ScienceDirect
• Ironic effects of suppression (meta-analysis). PubMed
• Psychological Reactance (overview). ResearchGate
• Implementation intentions (meta-analysis; effect sizes). ResearchGate+1
• MCII/WOOP (reviews; education/performance effects). PMC+1