Behavioural Friction Theory: Toward a Common Currency for Behavioural Science

Behavioural science has produced robust findings across dozens of research traditions, yet lacks the integrative architecture needed to connect them — a common unit or map for relating constructs across domains and anticipating cross-field interactions. Behavioural Friction Theory (BFT) proposes friction — the cost a regulatory system assigns to a potential action in a given situation — as a candidate common currency for behavioural science, a programmatic proposal whose status is contingent on independent field-level operationalisation. It offers a candidate decomposition of that cost into four fields (Safety, Meaning, Ability, Effort) across five layers (Biological, Emotional, Inner, Cognitive, External), with resolution modelled as a pressure-dependent race. BFT adds no new mechanism: its components are inherited and cited at the point of use (accumulation-to-threshold, expected value of control, hierarchical control, ordered appraisal). The contribution is threefold: (1) a field × layer map on which traditions such as polyvagal theory, self-efficacy research, cognitive load theory, psychological safety, and nudge theory are located as candidate descriptions of regions of a proposed shared landscape; (2) design heuristics motivated by the decomposition (baseline pressure as an intervention precondition, weakest-field prioritisation, and a bounded-compensation prediction); and (3) thirty formal, individually-testable propositions, each with a minimal test design, framed as a pre-registerable programme for testing whether the four fields are functionally dissociable. The central requirement is stated plainly: field-level friction has no validated measurement instrument yet, so several propositions are not presently runnable — they are tests to be run, not results in hand. The decomposition is falsified if the four fields do not dissociate under manipulation, or if a unitary-cost model — expected value of control, active inference, or a resource-rational model that collapses to a single cost — accounts for the same variance. BFT is offered as an architecture within which existing theories can be compared, connected, and extended, not as a replacement for them. v15 (August 2026) — positioning update. The framework is situated relative to Resource-Rational Analysis (Lieder & Griffiths, 2020), and the common currency is stated as a candidate, programmatic account rather than a substrate-universal law; the architecture and propositions are unchanged in substance. Earlier versions remain accessible through the version history.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-08-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22040491
Primary Topic
Social Power and Status Dynamics
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Behavioural Friction Theory: Toward a Common Currency for Behavioural Science

Tomas Pødenphant Lund
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Social Power and Status Dynamics
preprint

Behavioural Friction Theory: Toward a Common Currency for Behavioural Science

Tomas Pødenphant Lund
preprint en

Abstract

Behavioural science has produced robust findings across dozens of research traditions, yet lacks the integrative architecture needed to connect them — a common unit or map for relating constructs across domains and anticipating cross-field interactions. Behavioural Friction Theory (BFT) proposes friction — the cost a regulatory system assigns to a potential action in a given situation — as a candidate common currency for behavioural science, a programmatic proposal whose status is contingent on independent field-level operationalisation. It offers a candidate decomposition of that cost into four fields (Safety, Meaning, Ability, Effort) across five layers (Biological, Emotional, Inner, Cognitive, External), with resolution modelled as a pressure-dependent race. BFT adds no new mechanism: its components are inherited and cited at the point of use (accumulation-to-threshold, expected value of control, hierarchical control, ordered appraisal). The contribution is threefold: (1) a field × layer map on which traditions such as polyvagal theory, self-efficacy research, cognitive load theory, psychological safety, and nudge theory are located as candidate descriptions of regions of a proposed shared landscape; (2) design heuristics motivated by the decomposition (baseline pressure as an intervention precondition, weakest-field prioritisation, and a bounded-compensation prediction); and (3) thirty formal, individually-testable propositions, each with a minimal test design, framed as a pre-registerable programme for testing whether the four fields are functionally dissociable. The central requirement is stated plainly: field-level friction has no validated measurement instrument yet, so several propositions are not presently runnable — they are tests to be run, not results in hand. The decomposition is falsified if the four fields do not dissociate under manipulation, or if a unitary-cost model — expected value of control, active inference, or a resource-rational model that collapses to a single cost — accounts for the same variance. BFT is offered as an architecture within which existing theories can be compared, connected, and extended, not as a replacement for them. v15 (August 2026) — positioning update. The framework is situated relative to Resource-Rational Analysis (Lieder & Griffiths, 2020), and the common currency is stated as a candidate, programmatic account rather than a substrate-universal law; the architecture and propositions are unchanged in substance. Earlier versions remain accessible through the version history.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Aarhus University (DK)
Social Power and Status Dynamics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.