Let us look at definitions first.
A role (also rôle or social role) is a set of connected behaviors, rights, obligations, beliefs, and norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation. It is an expected or free or continuously changing behaviour and may have a given individual social status or social position. It is vital to both functionalist and interactionist understandings of society.
I am looking at "role" from the perspective of sociology, so I would like to restrict this definition and consider by role the position of a person in a social structure.
Behavior (American English) or behaviour (Commonwealth English) is the actions and mannerisms made by individuals, organisms, systems or artificial entities in conjunction with themselves or their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the (inanimate) physical environment. It is the computed response of the system or organism to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.
This is a bit heavy. We will be considering only "individuals" here.
Suppose I am researching a person in a society, and I have managed, on one hand, to locate several distinct roles they occupy, and, on the other hand, a number of behaviours they are noticed to perform. I find it safe to assume that some of the behaviours discovered are "connected" to the roles — that is, there is a measure that determines how likely would another person with the same role be to perform the behaviour. Furthermore, I find it plausible to believe that, given otherwise even choice, a person will prefer a behaviour that is more strongly connected to some of the roles they occupy, so I see this "strength of connexion" as a continuum.
- Is it fair to accept the assumptions I made above?
- How can I measure the strength of connexion between a role and a behaviour?