Behavioural Science is a rapidly expanding field and everyday new research is being developed in academia, tested and implemented by practitioners in financial organisations, development agencies, government ‘nudge’ units and more. This interview is part of a series interviewing prominent people in the field. And in today's interview the answers are provided by Cale Hubble.
Cale is a project manager and team leader in a behavioural science team in the Australian Public Service. He has worked in futures thinking, human-centred design, program evaluation, organisational culture and behavioural science in Australian and UK organisations, and at the OECD. He studied psychology and social science at the University of Sydney.
The views reflected in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government.
How did you get into behavioural science?
I got into behavioural science in kind of a roundabout way. Initially, I studied psychology, then went into a public service job. A few years later, when Nudge came out and everyone started getting interested in behavioural public policy, I thought, "Oh, that’s what I want to do." So I gradually worked my way towards it.
But if I think about it more, my interest probably started much earlier. I’ve always been fascinated by why people do what they do. Even as a kid, my family would run these little experiments in public—like, we’d leave a coin on the ground and watch from a distance to see how people reacted. My dad was a salesperson, and my mom was a counsellor, so in a way, both of them were involved in applied psychology, and I think that rubbed off on me.
In my career, I’ve worked in a few different roles in the public service, like evaluation and organizational culture, and even in a team focused on human-centred design. All of these roles had a focus on being people-centred and evidence-driven. But I became particularly interested in applying behavioural science in a more experimental, quantitative way to solve policy problems. Working in a government behavioural science team seemed like a great fit for that, with the ability to really influence policy.
Throughout your career so far, what is the thing that you are proudest of having achieved?
I was really excited to work at the OECD last year on a report called LOGIC: Good Practice Principles for Mainstreaming Behavioural Public Policy, which was published a few months ago. The report aimed to revisit where applied behavioural public policy stands 10-15 years after it took off and to explore how to maximize its future impact. One of the key challenges we identified was ensuring that behavioural scientists are in the right place at the right time to influence real decisions. It became clear that the broader policy system needs to be restructured to better support the timely use of behavioural science evidence.
And what is it that you're still hoping to achieve?
The work in public policy is never really finished. There are always new challenges emerging, either from societal shifts or changing government priorities, creating fresh opportunities for behavioural science to contribute. I don’t think there will ever be a point where behavioural science is no longer relevant to public policy. However, we’re still not fully there in embedding a behavioural perspective into how public policy is developed.
Over the past 10 years, we’ve made huge strides. Public servants are asking more mature, thoughtful questions, and there's greater awareness of individual barriers and biases that can affect policy outcomes. But I think the ultimate goal is to see a widespread level of behavioural science skills across everyone involved in policy work. We’re not quite there yet. Ideally, every policy designer would have a basic capability in understanding and applying behavioural insights, leaving core behavioural science teams to focus on advanced research, testing, and evaluating interventions.
Do you see yourself in that educator type role, making sure everyone has that basic capability set?
Absolutely. I think for those of us working in applied behavioural science, especially in government or other large organizations, we really have a triple role. First, we’re knowledge brokers—bringing in insights from academia or other contexts and translating them into something that makes sense for our organization.
Second, there's the core work people usually think of—doing our own behavioural design and research to answer specific questions. But the third aspect is just as important, which is upskilling—helping spread the tools more broadly. A lot of government behavioural science units focus on that, developing resources, fact sheets, e-learning courses, the whole package.
Is that one of the core challenges you’re seeing in behavioural science then, that it’s not properly embedded in public policy yet? Or are there other more pressing challenges?
Yeah, I think that's right. We've made progress, but there's definitely room to grow. Everyone wants their particular approach to become more widespread, so I know it can sound a bit self-serving to push our own agenda. But I do think there are some basic problem-solving approaches—whether that’s an experimental mindset, an innovative mindset, or a creative mindset—that we bring, and I’d like to see those applied more broadly.
In terms of upskilling, I don’t think that alone is enough. It’s an important part, for sure, and getting people interested in behavioural science to champion it in their units is valuable. But if the system doesn’t support it, even the best champions won’t make lasting change. A key piece is leadership. When senior executives and decision makers start asking for the evidence base behind policies, or about whether different cohorts have been considered, it trickles down. Program designers and managers will then be more likely to seek evidence and engage behavioural scientists in the process.
Another approach is to build these considerations into policy-making processes. For example, in the Netherlands, any policy proposal must go through a "capacity to act" check, which requires considering a behavioural perspective. By embedding this into the system, it’s not just about attending a course—it’s about creating structures that support sustained behavioural insight in policy design.
Do you think solving for these challenges will facilitate a better future for behavioural science? And what would that future look like – or what are you hoping it will look like?
I’d like to see applied behavioural science units contributing to the broader field. It’s a challenge because, on one hand, you want the insights developed within large corporations or governments to be more broadly available and to inform work elsewhere. But the reality is, it’s sometimes difficult due to confidentiality in private enterprises and certain restrictions in government. That said, some behavioural science units, like the ones I’ve worked with, do have reputations for publishing their findings, which is a step toward transparency.
Transparency is key, both for building trust in the field and for demonstrating the evidence base behind our work. However, there are times when influencing government policy for the good of citizens requires sensitivity, and not everything can be publicly shared.
As for how the field will develop over the next decade, I’m really hoping to see better theoretical models in behavioural science that cut across different domains. The field is moving away from just cataloguing biases toward something more coherent and comprehensive, which I think would be really powerful, especially in applied contexts.
One project that excites me in this area is the Human Behaviour Change Project. They’re working on creating an ontology of behavioural interventions—essentially mapping out the "active ingredients" of each intervention. This could ultimately enable machine learning to scan across vast bodies of literature and generate predictions on what might work best in a given context. That’s really exciting because, in applied work, we often rely on what’s been tried before, but there may be better solutions we just haven’t considered. With better tools like this, we could approach new contexts with more confidence, even trying interventions that haven’t been directly tested but seem like a good fit based on broader evidence.
Any personal frustrations with the field in general?
One that comes to mind—and this is from an applied perspective but should be relevant beyond just government work—is how behavioural science fits into a broader mosaic of evidence-generating approaches. There are so many working in the same space, like program evaluation, human-centred design, futures thinking, systems thinking, economic modelling, and participatory methods like co-design. These all aim to solve problems in a human-centred way, but I don’t think we’ve quite figured out how behavioural science dovetails with these other approaches.
People are making connections here and there, but there’s a common challenge we’re all facing: developing useful evidence that’s human-centred. There are still tensions in how these different approaches play out. For example, when should someone turn to a behavioural scientist versus a UX designer, systems thinker, or economic modeller? It’s not always clear who to go to, or how each perspective can complement others.
Often, when people are trying to solve a problem, they don’t even realize there are multiple angles to approach it from. Depending on who they consult, the problem may be reframed in different ways. When people come to us with a problem, we often suggest shifting perspectives or looking at the issue from another angle—but a different team might reframe it entirely differently. I think there’s work to be done in better integrating these different groups and approaches.
Do you think that this lack of clarity, especially for people who have had minimal exposure to UX, HCD and other fields, is a threat to behavioural science?
Yeah, I think that’s right. Part of this is also that these approaches tend to become "flavours of the month." Behavioural science, like other fields, probably follows the Gartner hype curve—maybe we’re at the plateau stage now, though I’m not sure. The real challenge is that while we promote robust science, it’s hard to communicate that when people are time-pressed or resource-constrained, and light-touch advice doesn’t always get properly tested.
Realistically, what kind of skill set are you working towards when upskilling someone in behavioural science? And what is the skill set of a great behavioural scientist?
Yeah, there’s a lot of debate about what level of behavioural science expertise generalists should have, whether in government or private organizations. My view is twofold. First, everyone should recognize the point at which they need to seek expert support. That threshold changes depending on the context—some areas with a strong evidence base may be fine with a basic literature scan and application of established frameworks, while more complex environments with weaker evidence require expert input early on.
One reasonable expectation is that generalists should be able to unpack a problem behaviourally—thinking in terms of discrete cohorts, behaviours, and barriers. When they hit questions they can’t answer or lack confidence, that’s when they should bring in behavioural science experts. For behavioural scientists themselves, it’s less about individual capabilities and more about building teams with the right blend of skills to drive change. The “science” part—research design, data collection, and analysis—is just the middle of a much longer process.
On the front end, consulting skills are crucial—working with stakeholders to define problems and understand the systems in which they operate. On the back end, implementation is often just as challenging as scaling; it’s about translating research insights into actionable steps, even on a small scale. This requires a broad skill set, from project management and stakeholder engagement to communication and understanding organizational decision-making processes.
In my experience, teams often hire people with strong project or organizational experience who may not be as advanced in behavioural science, because understanding how government or large organizations work is just as critical. Ultimately, the most effective behavioural science teams combine research rigour with consulting skills and an understanding of the specific organizational context, allowing them to operate flexibly and communicate effectively.
Given how you got into the field, is that something that you think can be replicated, and is that something that you would recommend? Or how would you recommend someone get into the field if your own journey isn't replicable any more?
That's a great question. With the growth of the field, we’re seeing incredibly high-quality applicants, even for relatively junior positions. That said, I still believe in hiring people with complementary skill sets. Teams don’t tend to hire only those who’ve come through a specific pathway, like just PhDs from one particular background. A team of 100% social psychology PhDs, for example, might excel at certain tasks but wouldn’t be as effective in an applied context.
There are more master's programs now that teach the language and concepts we use, which helps applicants articulate their value. While further training through a master’s or PhD is always attractive to recruitment panels, there are other ways to develop the necessary skills. Personally, I started in the public service after an undergrad degree and learned through various roles. I still think that pathway is viable—building expertise on the job and moving up from junior positions.
Ultimately, while advanced credentials can be helpful, panels shouldn’t just be looking for specific degrees. People can grow into these roles through experience, and that’s something I’m keen to keep open. I’m cautious about pushing a credentialism perspective.
Imagine that you didn't find behavioural science, or in your case, what do you think you would have become?
Yeah, at different points in my life, I had various interests. At one stage, I really wanted to work in talk radio, like a “university of the air,” creating programs that conveyed complex ideas to an audience. That’s influenced my work, too—focusing on packaging information effectively, ensuring scientific rigour while crafting persuasive narratives to make insights actionable. Communication has always been a key interest for me.
So, podcaster before podcasting was cool. Love it. Do you apply behavioural science to your own life or does it not make it through the front door?
I don’t have cute examples of self-nudges, unfortunately, but I do think a lot about bias in my decision-making, especially with complex decisions. I often use something like multi-criteria decision analysis, where I break down different criteria and options, score each, and sometimes even add weighting to each criterion. It’s a semi-quantitative process, but really, it’s just a way to surface how I feel about a decision. In the end, I don’t use the algorithm to decide; I look at the outcome and check my gut feeling. It’s more fun than flipping a coin, and I can adjust the weightings to match how I feel.
Last question: who has inspired you in the field of behavioural science? Who should I interview next?
So you've probably already spoken to all of these people, but regardless I’ll give you the list: Susan Michie, Ruth Schmidt, Chiara Varazzani, Jason Collins, Elspeth Kirkman, Steve Wendell, and I love BehaviourWorks down in Melbourne, so anyone from BehaviourWorks!
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Cale!
As I said before, this interview is part of a larger series which can also be found here on the blog. Make sure you don't miss any of those, nor any of the upcoming interviews!
Keep your eye on Money on the Mind!
