Valid uses of stated intentions in tourism research

Lim (2026) sets conditions under which stated behavioural intentions can serve as a standalone dependent variable in tourism research. We share the boundary Lim (2026) draws, that intention data cannot validate conclusions about actual behaviour, and take a different view on three propositions. First, the intention–behaviour gap in tourism is not only attenuation: comparisons show reversals of sign and reorderings of options, so intention evidence may provisionally prioritise candidates for field testing but should never eliminate them. Second, the four checks govern what an intention study may claim, not whether it should be run in that form; we propose a fifth check, applied before design, requiring the most construct-correspondent measure that is feasible. Third, safeguards that defer behavioural evidence rest on a corroboration that is itself only an intention, so the behavioural stage should be specified and resourced rather than promised. A decision chart operationalises the fifth check.