It might be useful to consider first, what is the context in which these 'behavioural categories' have been referred to. This implies that it depends on the context in which these kinds of categories are distinguished from other relevant categories, which may explain why in the given context it is important to refer to 'behavioural' categories in the first place. To make the long story short, let us first assume that the term 'behavioural categories' has been used in social scientific context, which would imply that the author most likely wanted to refer to categories which are different from 'structural categories'. The latter refers to such fundamental concepts as 'class', 'institution', 'regulation', 'capital accumulation' or 'corporate power', whereas 'behavioural categories' refer to fundamental -- e.g. explanatory, interpretative or descriptive -- concepts that relate to human behaviour, such as 'motivation', 'incentive', 'attitude', 'satisfaction', 'pleasure' and so forth.
As said, as the use of such concept is context-specific, and the other possibility is to see this in psychological context, as suggested by cpsj92. Yet, even in such a case we must remember that 'categories' are not just any concepts but the ones that have some special relevance in the given explanatory scheme or framework. Thus, taking this into account, I wonder if anyone has to refer to 'crying', 'smiling' etc. as 'behavioural categories' (unless they are really used to theorize about human behaviour, communication or gestures). Rather, they refer to more fundamental aspects of human behaviour, as referred to above, such as 'motivation', 'emotions' and the like. Hope this helps. Any corrections are warmly welcome.