Behavior Parameters Model: A Framework for Analyzing Behavior

I focus on decisions. In my job, I help clients make good decisions. And I protect them from the consequences of bad ones.

For a long time, however, I was interested in more than the legal aspects of decisions. I decided to examine the decision-making process from a much broader perspective.

Then, I studied the basic literature on the neurological and psychological aspects of decision-making. I also examined the role of decisions in game theory and conflict strategy.

Finally, I explored the behavioral approach, which focuses on external manifestations of behavior rather than internal beliefs and conscious motivation.

This approach convinced me the most. Therefore, I decided to make an important change compared with the previously described Decision Parameters Model.

I had even compared that model functionally with, among other things, A. Damasio’s somatic marker theory.

The model I present here does not describe the decision-making process. It describes behavior.

The Behavior Parameters Model (BPM) does not describe what a person thinks. It describes what they do.

This makes it possible to analyze strategy in conflicts based on facts rather than declarations. I believe it is worth using alongside the Fogg Behavior Model.

The Heuristic Behavior Parameters Model

The Behavior Parameters Model is a binary, three-parameter heuristic model. It classifies observable behavior in a specific strategic context.

It also helps formulate and test competing hypotheses about an unknown parameter of that behavior.

What do I mean by its binary nature? Each parameter has two possible values.

How does this relate to the need to formulate at least two hypotheses when identifying an unknown parameter?

The point is that each possible value of every parameter contains many possibilities. Sometimes, these possibilities may even contradict each other.

Consider the example of marriage. Filing for divorce indicates a desire for change. But what kind of change? Does it mean ending the marriage, or trying to repair it?

Purpose of the Behavior Parameters Model

My model aims to describe as many types of behavior as possible in a simple way. I wanted it to be intuitive, although this is highly subjective, and useful.

Its usefulness lies in its simplicity. The model automatically assumes an alternative and encourages intellectual effort to consider another option.

If we see someone’s right hand, we should assume that a left hand exists. Likewise, each behavioral parameter adopted by the model contains two possibilities.

Awareness of this fact has value in itself. It helps us better understand the other party’s behavior and consider alternatives to our own actions.

I believe I achieved the model’s intuitive nature by basing it on fundamental concepts. These concepts should be obvious to everyone, or at least to most people.

Of course, the readers will ultimately decide whether this assumption is correct.

I therefore propose a heuristic model for describing behavior in strategy. Its usefulness includes:

1. forcing consideration of alternative hypotheses about an unknown element of behavior;
2. facilitating the search for an unknown parameter by identifying a field for developing working hypotheses.

Description of the Behavior Parameters Model

I provisionally named my model the Behavior Parameters Model. The model uses three parameters. Let us examine them.

3 Behavioral Parameters

I propose assigning 3 parameters to behavior.

The 3 behavioral parameters are: vector, dynamics, and momentum.

Vector

The first parameter is the vector. Its reference point is (usually) the current state, or status quo.

The vector determines the direction in which behavior affects the current state. Its value is 0 or 1.

Let 0 indicate a tendency to remain in the current arrangement, while 1 leads to change.

Challenges of the Vector

I realize that the current state may be highly complex. Some elements may be desirable, while others may not.

I also recognize that this state may be dynamic and change in a particular direction, or several directions.

In such a situation, someone may accept the direction of change, but not its speed, scope, or method.

Another obvious problem concerns defining the reference point itself. What constitutes the status quo?

Is it the revolution, or the regime that the revolution overthrew? Is the reference point the state being changed, the process of change, or the resulting state?

At an abstract level, there are no answers to these questions.

At a concrete level, I believe we should choose the simplest reference point directly affected by the behavior.

The simplest reference point is probably the current state, insofar as the behavior relates to it. I think we should start there.

This does not change the fact that searching for the broadest possible context remains justified.

The example at the end of this article will show the practical benefits of considering the reference point itself.

It significantly expands the space for formulating testable hypotheses.

Dynamics

The second behavioral parameter is dynamics. Let us distinguish 2 values of dynamics: (+) and (-).

Here, (+) means action, while (-) means passivity.

Challenges of Dynamics

For clarity, I use the term “behavior” to include both traditional action and passivity.

The first type is deliberate and conscious passivity. In legal terminology, we could compare it to an “omission.”

However, passivity does not necessarily have a negative meaning in this model.

The second type is unconscious and unintended passivity. It may result from powerlessness, regardless of its cause, attitude toward it, or consequences. This is also one of the model’s strengths, because such passivity can still have a significant effect on reality.

The third problem I see here concerns the number of possible paths toward a given goal.

There may be many such paths, and they do not always exclude one another. Some may even operate simultaneously and independently.

In this version, my model describes the dynamics of a single behavior. There is no obstacle, however, to describing several behaviors within a particular state. Each behavior can then receive its own value, expressed as D(n)(-/+).

Momentum

The third behavioral parameter is Momentum, which I previously called Determination.

I decided to change the name for three reasons. First, using physical terms for all three parameters makes the model more internally consistent. Second, using the first letter avoids repetition between Determination and Dynamics. Finally, Momentum refers less to conscious volition and more directly to behavior. Determination answers the question of what the subject wants. Momentum describes what happens to the subject. This better captures the external, behavioral aspects of this parameter.

Momentum describes the degree to which someone maintains or increases engagement in a given behavior despite incurred or anticipated costs, losses, and risks.

Momentum therefore has two possible values: (L) means low, while (H) means high.

Challenges of Momentum

I am fully aware that Momentum may be a complex factor. Describing it through two values necessarily simplifies it. Its value may change over time. It may also differ depending on the type of cost, such as financial or reputational costs. Also, it may differ depending on a particular strategy. It may also depend on multiple sequences of moves and their scope.

Thus, this represents an extreme simplification. Yet this is precisely where its advantage lies.

The model allows us to simplify something that may otherwise appear complex and chaotic.

If we understand what these terms may encompass, they can prove useful. They work much like the terms “cheap” and “expensive.”

Behavioral Parameters as an Element of Strategy

The vector defines the relationship between behavior and the reference point.

Behavior that protects the status quo or results in its change may take the form of action or passivity.

This corresponds to dynamics (+ or -).

Momentum describes maintaining or increasing engagement in a given behavior despite costs, losses, and risks.

Vector, dynamics, and momentum form a simplified heuristic model that I developed.

At least, I am not aware of any publications that use these parameters in this way.

I developed the model to describe behavior. Its usefulness certainly requires testing.

At present, it remains purely a hypothetical model.

Table 1: 3 Behavioral Parameters

Behavioral parameter	Parameter value	Description and significance
Vector	0	Tendency to maintain the current state
	1	Tendency to change the current state
Dynamics	+	Active behavior
	–	Passive behavior
Momentum	L	Low maintenance or increase of engagement despite costs, losses, and risks
	H	High maintenance or increase of engagement despite costs, losses, and risks

Determining the Missing Parameter

Importantly, identifying and correctly interpreting the factors underlying two behavioral parameters gives us data that suggest a direction for searching for the third.

Knowing two parameters does not determine the third. However, it allows us to construct focused hypotheses about its value, grounded in the actual context.

Testing these hypotheses requires analyzing additional observable behaviors and the surrounding context.

Importantly, we should test these hypotheses not only against each other, but above all against the facts.

Each pair of parameters creates a hypothesis space for the third

I emphasize that knowing two parameters does not allow us to infer the value of the third. It does, however, allow us to construct focused hypotheses about its possible value. Moreover, we should assume that this approach may only work within a specific context. By this, I mean that we need to understand the environment and relationships in which the strategy operates.

If we know how person X’s behavior relates to the status quo (V), and we have identified their behavior (D), we can more easily construct two context-grounded hypotheses about their Momentum (P).

If we observe behavior (D) and a particular Momentum (P), we can formulate competing hypotheses about its effect on the status quo (V).

We can then test these hypotheses against known facts and further observations.

If we know a person’s relationship to the status quo (V) and their Momentum (P), we can more easily construct two opposing hypotheses about how they pursue their goal (D).

We can then test these hypotheses against known facts and against each other.

Limitations of the Behavior Parameters Model

A defining feature of my model is that it says nothing about the value of the missing parameter. We cannot infer its value in any way from the values of the two known parameters. This limitation, however, is also the model’s greatest strength. It allows us to use the two known parameters as a starting point for developing and testing hypotheses about the third. Moreover, it forces us to construct at least two opposing hypotheses about the value of the missing parameter.

Hypotheses and Truth

We must always assume that none of the hypotheses created in this way will prove true. In particular, falsifying one hypothesis does not automatically establish the truth of the other. Surviving successive attempts to falsify a hypothesis increases the justification for treating it as a working hypothesis. It does not prove that the hypothesis is true (Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery). Since each parameter is at least binary, not knowing its value allows us to formulate at least two competing hypotheses. We should then confront these hypotheses with each other and with known facts through logical analysis.

Behavior Instead of Declarations

The model therefore assumes that we should give greater weight to observable behavior and its consequences when identifying parameters.

We should give less weight to declarations about one’s own intentions. We can try to identify the missing information by analyzing behavior through abductive reasoning.

The model does not predict the missing parameter. It helps us search for it. Any conclusion about the third parameter depends on correctly identifying the two initial parameters. However, an error in identifying them does not necessarily make our hypothesis about the third parameter immediately false. Likewise, confirming the correctness of earlier assumptions does not determine the truth of the second hypothesis. Nor does falsifying one hypothesis establish the truth of the other.

I emphasize that not every hypothesis logically consistent with two known parameters is equally justified.

We should evaluate a hypothesis primarily by its consistency with observable facts, context, and subsequent behavior.

Boundaries of the Model

My model does not address the decision-making process itself. It has nothing to do with neurological or psychological processes.

The model describes behavior that may form part of a strategy identified through observable behavior in a specific context.

The model also does not address declared or concealed motivation, values, or ideology. It does not describe awareness of the situation’s importance, its causes, or its consequences.

It says nothing about what a person thinks. Instead, it organizes what they do, helping us understand it.

The Problem of Passivity

My previous Decision Parameters Model did not include passivity understood as ambivalence, indifference, or lack of engagement. It clearly distinguished such passivity from “conscious persistence” or “holding one’s position.”

The Behavior Parameters Model, however, includes both activity and passivity, regardless of their causes or the subject’s attitude toward them. In other words, when describing behavioral consequences and their effects on the current state, the cause of passivity does not matter. The current state represents the first working reference point selected for the analysis. It does not matter whether passivity results from an adopted strategy or from an inability to recognize one’s role and its consequences. It also does not matter whether inaction results from acceptance, procrastination, waiting, ambivalence, continuous deliberation, intimidation, or unawareness of the choice itself.

Internal motivational and decision-making processes are irrelevant here. The same applies to the causes behind adopting a particular position, whether conscious or unconscious. These causes may be genuine, verbalized, concealed, subconscious, internal, or external. We do not describe or analyze the goals, motivations, or value systems underlying them.

The Benefits

This produces several benefits:

1. We avoid psychologizing and trying to get inside another person’s head.
2. We describe what is expressed and observable: behavior.
3. We describe actual rather than intended consequences of behavior.
4. Miscalculations and possible cognitive errors become irrelevant.

I want to make one point clear. These limitations apply only to the description of behavior. When we use the model to construct hypotheses about an unknown parameter, however, we must consider these factors. We should nevertheless follow the principle of maximizing the use of facts and minimizing psychologizing without factual support.

The Problem of Activity

We should therefore ask an analogous question about activity. Can we assume that conscious rationality underlies activity and places the behavior within the context we are analyzing?

That would be equally wrong. It is more appropriate to describe individual behaviors and their consequences. We can then use induction to construct hypotheses about the strategy adopted by the other party.

From our perspective, it again does not matter whether the behaviors are deliberate, conscious, or planned. Nor does it matter whether an ideology or value system underlies them, or what that ideology might be. It also does not matter whether the subject recognizes all their consequences within the field that interests us.

Can We Speak of Strategy?

It is reasonable to ask whether we can speak of strategy at all in light of the previous observations. I believe we can, provided that we adopt a broad, functional understanding of strategy. If we strip strategies of motivation, consciousness, ideology, values, and conscience, we reduce them to behavior. When considered collectively, such behavior may lead with sufficient consistency to a particular outcome. In this sense, I consider it possible to reconstruct the existence of a given strategy from observed behavior. Under certain conditions, this may also allow for limited predictions.

Example of Applying the Behavior Parameters Model

Recently, a client came to me regarding a divorce case. He had received a divorce petition and was completely surprised. What is important, he still lived with his wife, they did not argue, and there was no violence, alcohol abuse, or infidelity in their relationship. He could not understand the situation in which he found himself. We tried to analyze it through the lens of behavior.

Determining the Parameters

The wife took specific, visible actions. She went to a lawyer and paid for the divorce petition. We therefore have positive dynamics (D+).

What else can we assume? The mere fact that she took action involving real financial and organizational costs also involved reputational risk and family consequences. This provides a strong basis for a working hypothesis of high Momentum in her behavior (MH). We do not treat this as certain, however. A final assessment would require observing her subsequent behavior. We would need to see whether she consistently maintains her engagement despite the costs, risks, and possibility of withdrawal.

Without the Behavior Parameters Model, a natural and unreflective assumption would be that filing for divorce itself means seeking to end the marriage permanently. The model, however, encourages us to ask further questions.

What Is the Reference Point?

We can therefore begin by identifying the status quo and asking whether it is:

Status quo 1 – the parties’ marriage as such, or

Status quo 2 – the parties’ marriage in its current form?

Recognizing this alternative is a breakthrough in our example. We must consider exactly what the divorce petition negated.

This dramatically expands the field for formulating hypotheses. We move from asking, “Why does the wife want a divorce?” to asking, “What state did her behavior negate?”

Constructing Hypotheses

We can try to answer this question by formulating two hypotheses:

Hypothesis H1: Filing the petition is an action aimed at permanently ending the marriage.

Hypothesis H2: Filing the petition is an action aimed at ending the marriage in its existing form.

H2 contains two further hypotheses:

H2a – filing the petition aims to end the marriage in its current form through divorce;

H2b – filing the petition aims to end the marriage in its current form by changing that form and saving the marriage.

H2b may initially seem absurd. That is precisely why it is worth formulating: under what circumstances could filing for divorce be an attempt to save the marriage rather than end it?

Hypothesis	Description	Strategic consequences
H1	Petition = seeking to end the marriage	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H
H2a	Petition = ending the current form of the marriage through divorce	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H
H2b	Petition = attempting to change the form of the marriage and save it	Vector 1, Dynamics +, Momentum H

Table 2: Hypotheses in the selected example

The Problem of the Vector in Table 2

It is important to note that the vector is described as 1 in every case, meaning a tendency toward change. However, the nature of that change differs completely between H1 and H2a, on the one hand, and H2b, on the other.

H1 and H2a involve divorce, while H2b involves repairing the marriage. Both tendencies negate the existing state, but they do so in completely opposite ways.

We can avoid this apparent contradiction by adopting a different reference point. If we treat marriage as such as the reference point, rather than marriage in its current form, the wife’s behavior would have a Vector of 1 in H1 and H2a.

Under H2b, it would have a Vector of 0. In every case, the Dynamics would be positive and Momentum high, as we may reasonably hypothesize.

In the circumstances of a particular dispute, it may turn out that the petition was a kind of “cry of despair.” It may have been a final attempt to provoke a reaction from the husband, a drastic test of his commitment, or an attempt to force him to take real action to save the relationship.

Conclusions from the Example

The model does not determine which of these hypotheses is true or which is more likely. Its role is to show that the same observable behavior may require consideration of more than one strategic interpretation.

Further analysis should therefore focus on facts that allow us to distinguish between these hypotheses.

This is where the model’s practical value becomes clear: it does not provide answers where we lack sufficient data. Instead, it forces us to formulate competing hypotheses and search for facts that can allow us to reject one of them.

The Behavior Parameters Model: observable behavior → three parameters → two known parameters → hypothesis space for the third → observable facts → testing/falsification.