Expanding the ABC Model to Understand and Improve Human Behavior

The Antecedent–Behavior–Consequence (ABC) model has been a cornerstone of behavioral psychology for decades (Bijou & Baer, 1961). It aims to make the complexity of human behavior more understandable: an antecedent (A) sets the stage, a behavior (B) occurs, and a consequence (C) follows. In applied practice – in classrooms, boardrooms, and locker rooms – the ABC model is often invoked as a quick diagnostic tool. However, human behavior rarely unfolds along a neat, linear chain. For coaches, educators, and leaders, the model is most powerful when antecedents are expanded beyond immediate triggers to include physiological, psychological, and cultural layers that influence action.

This article explores the ABC model through a broader lens, integrating insights from contemporary tools such as the High Order Performance (HOP) framework and the CARE Model. Together, these approaches provide practitioners with a research-based, field-tested process for shaping behavior and fostering long-term growth.

ABC in Action

At its core, the ABC framework is straightforward. It requires the evaluation of

• Antecedent: Environment and conditions that influence the likelihood of behavior.
• Behavior: Observable, measurable action (not a trait or personality judgment).
• Consequence: The outcomes following behavior, which influence the probability of recurrence through reinforcement or punishment.

Behavior analysts emphasize that the precision of definitions matters. Behavior should be something a camera could record (“athlete drops head after a turnover”); this is both effective, prevents bias (by limiting assumptions about character), and allows for measurable progress (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2020). Still, the approach has a few shortcoming…

In practice, antecedents are often reduced to the last observable cue: a whistle, a directive, a teammate’s comment. While these details should be incorporated into the evaluation, they are hardly sufficient to understand human behavior. Research in behavioral psychology and sport science suggests that antecedents are better conceptualized across three nested horizons (Friman & Poling, 1995; Vealey, 2007):

1. Immediate cues (seconds–minutes): prompts, peer behaviors, internal sensations such as fatigue or anxiety.
2. Contextual conditions (hours–days): sleep debt, nutritional state, cumulative stress, travel schedules, and workload.
3. Historical and identity-relevant factors (months–years): reinforcement history, injury history, cultural norms, trauma, skill acquisition opportunities, and role expectations.

A superficial analysis risks prescribing shallow interventions. For example, if an athlete abandons defensive assignments after a turnover, the antecedent is not only the missed play. It may also include accumulated fatigue, perceived identity threats, and prior reinforcement of negative self-talk. Addressing only the trigger misses the complexity of the behavioral ecology (Biddle, 2016).

If this degree of evaluation sounds like a lot of work, it is… but it’s worth it. And it is the only path to sustainable behavior change.

Integrating the HOP and CARE Models

Expanding antecedents aligns closely with the High Order Performance (HOP) framework, which emphasizes clarifying aims, identifying drivers of behavior, and embedding feedback loops to ensure alignment (Davis, 2023). The HOP framework highlights Bedrock – the fundamental physical level of performance, influenced by three primary domains: Eat, Move, Sleep. In the evaluation of a behavior, the fact that one was on 3 hours of sleep and severely dehydrated would, of course, play a role. By thoroughly mapping antecedents to goals and consequences (outcomes), practitioners can ensure that interventions target underlying drivers rather than surface-level symptoms.

The CARE Model takes the evaluation a step further, noting that one’s personal History plays an unavoidable role in the development of Mindsets and Drives, the accumulation of Skills and Strategies, and – ultimately – what Behaviors are at one’s disposal (Davis, 2024).

Each of these tools can be used in the wholistic evaluation of antecedents.

Workflow for Coaches and Leaders

1. Define the Behavior (B) Precisely
   • Write behavior in observable terms (“interrupts peers,” “drops head after a turnover”). Avoid traits (“is lazy”).
2. Widen Antecedents (A)
   • Immediate: What was happening seconds before?
   • Contextual: How are sleep, nutrition, pain, and workload contributing?
   • Historical/identity: What prior experiences, cultural norms, or role expectations shape the moment?
3. Audit Consequences (C)
   • Inventory both formal (e.g., substitution, reprimands) and informal (peer attention, relief from tasks). Even negative attention can reinforce behavior.
4. Intervene Across Levels
   • Antecedent tweaks: Clarify expectations, adjust workload, provide prompts, modify environment.
   • Skill teaching: Use CARE to strengthen awareness of triggers, teach regulation strategies (breathing, self-talk), and provide meaningful engagement opportunities.
   • Consequence engineering: Reinforce approximations of target behavior; neutralize accidental rewards for undesirable behavior.
5. Install Feedback Loops
   • Collect data (behavior frequency, situational notes). Review regularly to refine interventions, consistent with HOP’s emphasis on alignment and iteration.

Including HOP/CARE: Goal → Mindsets & Drives (including Physical State) → Skills & Strategies → Behaviors → Feedback

Applied Examples

Classroom

• B: Student says something inappropriate during group work.
• A: Ambiguous instructions; low sleep; history of peer reinforcement; anxiety in unstructured time.
• C: Peers laugh (reinforcement); mild reprimand (attention).
• Plan: Clarify roles, provide a way to reflect (CARE), reinforce appropriate participation, provide leadership role to shift stakes.

Athletics

• B: Defender quits on the play after a turnover.
• A: Cognitive overload, low glycogen, identity threat.
• C: Peer criticism (attention); coach substitution (escape).
• Plan: Introduce “next-play” cue, design success drills post-error, reinforce hustle, remind the athlete that they matter beyond their play.

Workplace

• B: Manager sends critical emails without solutions.
• A: Chronic overload, unclear decisions/directions, history of critical reinforcement.
• C: Quick leadership responses (attention); avoidance of ownership (escape).
• Plan: Encourage an optimistic approach to delivering and receiving interoffice communication, encourage to pursue clarity as needed (what did you mean by that?), and reinforce solution-based communication.

Common Pitfalls and Solutions

• Vague behaviors: Replace “be respectful” with “wait until peer finishes speaking.”
• Tunnel vision: Ask about sleep, nutrition, workload… not everything has a KPI.
• Consequence blind spots: Attention, escape, and status often act as misaligned reinforcers. The obvious is not obvious.
• Single-lever fixes: It’s not enough to say “be nicer” – there must be a wholistic understanding. Combine antecedent, skill, and consequence strategies.
• Lack of feedback loops: Without measurement, improvement is guesswork – for interpersonal work, this can be measured through subjective feedback from individual and peers.

Next Steps

The ABC model remains a foundational tool because it is both simple and scalable. Yet its full potential emerges when antecedents are expanded to include physiological, psychological, and cultural layers. Integrating the HOP framework’s aim-behavior alignment with the CARE model’s practical skill-building, patience, and deep insights allows practitioners to move beyond surface-level “trigger management” and forced compliance, toward cultivating environments that naturally promote the behaviors we value. This approach is research-based and deeply aligned with the principles of effective coaching and leadership. It is effective. And it’s worth the effort.

---

References

Biddle, S. J. H. (2016). Physical activity and mental health: Evidence is growing. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 176–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20331

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: Vol. 1. A systematic and empirical theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.

Davis, J. (2023). Using the High Order Performance Framework for effective leadership. Journal of Character & Leadership Development, 10(3), 77–84.

Friman, P. C., & Poling, A. (1995). Making life easier with behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18(1), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392694

Vealey, R. S. (2007). Mental skills training in sport. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 287–309). Wiley.

Weiss, M. R., Bolter, N. D., & Kipp, L. E. (2013). Assessing impact of physical activity-based youth development programs: Validation of the Life Skills Transfer Survey (LSTS). Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(3), 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.812220