It's Time To Define Behavioral Science

Consistent terminology helps us grow

My behavioral science efforts often begin with helping organizations define their challenges more precisely. Conversations might have been sparked earlier by admirable company-wide initiatives in areas such as Sustainability, Human Rights, and Diversity. Yet, I've found those teams often have difficulty translating these broader goals into specific, measurable behavior changes and articulating which people and what choices they would like to influence.

It is only at this more detailed level that behavioral scientists can help organizations develop strategies and interventions that drive change. As importantly, this is where we as practitioners can raise a range of critical questions:

• Is this a challenge well-suited to Behavioral Science?
• Are we comfortable with this effort from an ethical standpoint?
• How will we test interventions and measure success?

But for all my "preaching" to clients about laser-defining their goals, I'm also very aware that our rapidly growing field has its issues with definition and terminology.

Behavioral Science terms are now referenced more frequently (and loosely) than ever, and it often appears that everyone is working from a slightly-different playbook. With this in mind, I'd like to share a quick perspective on several "definition" issues that I frequently encounter.

Behavioral Economics vs. Behavioral Science

Behavioral Economics (BE) and Behavioral Science (not to mention Behavioral Insights & Behavioral Design) get used interchangeably…perhaps due to concerns about a field grounded in "BS." However, I posit there is a distinction: Behavioral Economics is more deeply rooted in the study and understanding of human behavior and the field's academic grounding. Behavioral Science is more closely linked to the application and practice of academic literature to influence behavior.

For this reason, I favor "Behavioral Science" to describe my work as a practitioner. More broadly, I see the potential value in consistently using these two terms (BE and BS) to help distinguish between the academic and the applied.

"Nudging" vs. Marketing

"Nudge" has become a nearly universal term, used frequently and casually to describe a wide range of persuasion efforts or tactics, e.g., "Let's just nudge them along." Arguably, this is a positive sign, as it indicates an infusion into our collective thinking. However, this infusion also creates a concern that "nudging" will become classified (and perhaps dismissed) as just another marketing tool or communications strategy. Further, the popularity of "Nudge" leads many people to equate Behavioral Science with Nudging and ignore the field's far broader implications and applications.

I view the success and ubiquity of "Nudging" as an opportunity to educate clients on the broader field of Behavioral Science and the distinction between "Nudging" and Marketing. With the former, this involves introducing Behavioral Design and the idea that we can develop and inform better products, services, and systems through a deeper understanding of human behavior. With the latter, I typically position "Nudging" as a complement to traditional marketing, which can be particularly effective in helping people move from intent to action (on savings, personal health, sustainability, and many other areas).

Defining the Field

This discussion on terminology brings us to the most important and most consequential question: How do we define (or "frame") the field of Behavioral Science? We can break that down by explicitly asking:

• How does Behavioral Science add value?
• When should it be applied?
• What are the ethical implications of its use?
• Where should it "live" within organizations?

Of course, there's no single answer to these questions as each organization adopts and applies Behavioral Science based on their opportunities, challenges, and structure. I've found that a good starting point is to position Behavioral Science as a "new lens" to view challenges, rooted in an expanded (and evidence-based) understanding of human decision making, focused squarely on people's behavior, and committed to testing and measurement.

While this "working definition" is by no means complete, it helps ensure that Behavioral Science is perceived as more than a "tool" (to create nudges) and is understood to have applications that cut across multiple issues and functions.

I’ve found that a good starting point is to position Behavioral Science as a “new lens” rooted in an expanded (and evidence-based) understanding of human decision making, focused squarely on people’s behavior, and committed to testing and measurement.

Behavioral Science at a Crossroads

Our field has made enormous progress over the past decade, evolving from the academic study of Behavioral Economics to the broader horizon of applied Behavioral Science. And looking ahead, there's a significant opportunity to expand further its positive impact across the public, private and non-profit sectors.

Yet we arguably stand at a crossroads from which Behavioral Science will either become further integrated within organizations, policies, and processes, or it may become more misrepresented and ultimately dismissed as a marketing tool or the latest business fad.

To fully realize the field's potential, we need to begin by "practicing what we preach" and apply the further definition to our work. While distinguishing BE from BS — and Nudging from Marketing — may seem like relatively small semantic matters, they represent the beginning of the larger conversation to clarify our role and contribution (and perhaps our boundaries and limitations, as well).

Please clap 👏👏 if you find this post helpful. Thanks!

Scott Young is a Principal Advisor and Head of Private Sector of the Behavioral Insights Team (BIT), Americas.

Before joining BIT, Scott spent several years at the behavioral science consultancy BVA Nudge Unit and over 20 years leading Perception Research Services, a global shopper insights agency.

Scott is passionate about finding "win-win-win" opportunities (that benefit organizations, their employees and/or customers, and society) and applying behavioral science to help people make better decisions and adopt healthier habits. He is the author of 3 books and over 50 published articles, and he frequently guest lectures at Masters and Executive Education Programs, as he is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics (LSE) and an Advisory Board Member for the MBDS program at the University of Pennsylvania.

Connect with Scott on LinkedIn.