General Conceptual Model

As a key component of the holistic approach ACT takes to education and work readiness, the behavior domain focuses on interpersonal, self-regulatory, and effortful behaviors related to successful performance in education and workplace settings. Our conceptualization of this broad  domain leverages research from multiple areas of psychology, including educational, developmental,  industrial/organizational, and personality, to define what individuals need to know and be able—and  willing—to do from a behavioral perspective in order to be successful across a range of settings.1

The general conceptual model of behavior is presented in Figure 5. In this model, broad domains, which capture the consistency of behavior across time and situations, serve as the organizing framework

However, these are not sufficiently specific to be useful in applied settings, such as describing what students and workers need to know and be able to do to be successful. Therefore, the behavior framework drills down to a more specific level of behavioral skills. This is the level at which behavior influences important and measurable outcomes, such as academic and job performance (Furr, 2009; J. J. Jackson et al., 2010). Theory and research show that  behavior can be organized hierarchically; that is, behavior domains are composed of clusters of  narrower characteristics or “components,”2 which in turn are composed of even more specific  “subcomponents” that include behavioral skill dimensions and, finally, of specific behaviors (e.g.,  Digman, 1990; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). Narrower characteristics are useful for increasing  theoretical understanding of how personality and behavior relate to each other and to outcomes,  as well as for improving prediction (e.g., Ashton et al., 1995; Hogan & Roberts, 1996).3 The specific  behavioral skill dimensions in the behavioral skills taxonomy can be used to more clearly define what  people need to know and be able to do at different transition points, as well as to tailor training and  interventions to address individuals’ developmental needs.

In addition to proposing a more specific (behavioral) level of description (and prediction), this model also makes a distinction between narrower behavioral outcomes (e.g., showing up t class consistently) and broader, generalized outcomes of success (e.g., improved grades). This  distinction is important because specific behavioral outcomes are more proximal to the behavioral  skill dimensions articulated in the framework and can increase our understanding of the types of  behavioral changes that interventions are trying to impact (e.g., reduction in absenteeism) in order  to produce improvements in broader outcomes of interest down the road (e.g., improved grades,  improved graduation rates). Focusing on narrower observable behavioral skills can allow educators and employers to better concentrate their efforts and resources on helping individual students or employees develop the skills they need to improve and thrive.