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 Laura de Moliere. Laura founded and led the behavioural science team in the UK Government's Cabinet Office, where she worked as a key expert on major policy and fast moving communication challenges. Laura is a known thought leader in the field of behavioural science, having co-authored widely-applied frameworks such as the IN CASE framework to assess behavioural risk. For the last 10 years, Laura has consulted on the application of behavioural science to a broad range of complex societal challenges, including crises and humanitarian issues. Laura has guest lectured frequently at the University of Cambridge, University College London and the London School of Economics and Political Science. She holds a PhD in Cognitive Decision Sciences and Social Cognition from University College London.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
The better question is probably, how did behavioural science get into me? Because, honestly, I’ve always found human behaviour so puzzling. I was this nerdy kid who didn’t really understand the social world around her. I couldn’t figure out why people did what they did, so I felt this intense pull toward psychology.
It was such a strong obsession that three years before I graduated high school, I persuaded a local university to let me attend psychology lectures. Then I had to convince my school to release me from some classes so I could go. That’s how deeply I was drawn into this world.
After high school, I did my undergraduate degree in psychology, and somewhere along the way, I pretty naively skipped a master’s degree and jumped right into a PhD in cognitive decision sciences. I started doing internships with Klaus Fiedler and met Florian Kutzner, who became my longest-standing collaborator. We’ve been working together ever since. So, really, it was this overwhelming curiosity about human behaviour and a bit of naivety and an unshakable belief that the path is right for me that got me into behavioural science.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist?
There are two main things that I’m most proud of. The first is setting up the behavioural science team at the Cabinet Office and leading it through some of the most challenging times—Brexit and COVID. I was essentially given 48 hours to drop everything and start building this team, with only two weeks to get everything in place. It was a whirlwind, but I managed to pull together an amazing team of smart, quick-thinking, and kind people who were up for the challenge. We ended up working on topics behavioural science hadn’t touched before—high-profile, complex, fast-moving areas. We were thrown into some of the hardest situations, and I think we really made an impact. Setting up the team, I made a conscious decision not to box people in with rigid processes (such as “first we define the behaviour, then we analyse barriers…”). Instead of giving tasks, I gave them problems to solve, and that made all the difference. I trusted them to figure out the best way forward, and I think that’s why we were able to do some truly original work, like the Wall of Beliefs framework for disinformation and the IN CASE framework for behavioural risks. The team’s success wasn’t just about the work we did, but about the space we created to be flexible, fast, and innovative. I’m really proud of that.
The second accomplishment I am really proud of is the breadth of behavioural science projects I have worked across during my career. Sometimes when I spell it out I almost can‘t believe how lucky I am – I worked in projects across over 25 countries, on topics ranging from the more traditional health, energy, sustainability, labour market topics to child sexual abuse, drug addiction, wars and conflicts more broadly, disinformation as a threat to democracy and humanitarian crises. My mission here is really to embed behavioural science in areas where we can make a difference in complex topics.
How do you think behavioural science will develop in the next 10 years?
Behavioural science has come a long way, but I think the future lies in integrating it more with complexity science. Right now, we talk a lot about understanding behaviours and barriers, and we’ve even started using some systems thinking, but it’s still too static. We’re not really looking at complex adaptive systems, and that’s where we need to go next.
For example, we’ve traditionally been very focused on influencing behaviours based on the knowledge we hold, and that’s been useful in some contexts for behaviours with relatively clear constraints (e.g. getting more people to make vegetarian choices in a canteen). But when you’re dealing with more complex problems, like we often do in public policy, we need to move beyond that. The tools we’ve been using aren’t always the right fit for contributing well. We need to develop new methods that take into account the complexity and dynamic nature of human behaviour.
This means moving away from reductionist, linear thinking. We behavioural scientists are used to working in a certain way—defining behavioural outcomes and then trying to influence them. But in complex systems, that doesn’t always work. Instead, we might need to focus on low-risk solutions, monitoring emergent behaviours, and being more adaptable in how we approach problems. People like Steve Wendell are already doing some great work in this space, and I think we’ll see more of that in the coming years. Ultimately, we need to grow as a field and be willing to let go of some of our old approaches to embrace more complexity – being able to “unlearn” has to be a defining feature for a successful behavioural scientist.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science right now?
One of the biggest challenges is dishonest marketing and over-promising. There’s this tendency, especially from agencies, to sell behavioural science like it’s magic. It’s easier to sell when it sounds simple and powerful, but it’s actually making our jobs harder in the long run. Clients expect immediate, miracle solutions, and when they don’t see that, it damages the credibility of the field. I’ve actively chosen to be rather “boring-sounding” in some complex projects, because I’d rather be honest and humble about what behavioural science can do than oversell it. But this isn‘t a privilege many have – especially if your job depends on it. So that‘s a big challenge.
I also worry that there are not enough jobs for all the behavioural scientists who are just entering the job market coming out of a master’s programme, or have retrained. Apart from there not being quite as many behavioural science positions as there are great people, we’re also mass-producing behavioural scientists without always equipping them with adaptable skills. I’ve seen too many absolutely brilliant graduates come out of master’s programs with very similar skill sets, but not much critical thinking. It’s frustrating - they’re being boxed in by the narrowness of the field.
What skills are needed to be a behavioural scientist?
The core skills are, of course, logical and scientific thinking. You need to be able to analyse situations and reason through problems using evidence and clear thinking. But beyond that, cognitive empathy is absolutely crucial. I’m not talking about emotional empathy—feeling what others feel—I’m talking about the ability to take another person’s perspective. You need to understand how people see the world, even if their view is completely different from your own. This perspective-taking is a core skill that I think often gets overlooked.
Then there’s epistemic humility, which is the ability to recognize the limits of your own knowledge. Behavioural scientists need to be open to updating their beliefs, especially when new evidence challenges what they think they know. It’s about not getting too attached to your own ideas and being willing to change when the evidence points you in a different direction.
I also think one absolute core skill we often forget is also that the actual behaviours we are working with are those of our stakeholders. I have seen many fail by “injecting knowledge / evidence” and then being annoyed that ideas aren‘t having an impact. In my work, I focus first and foremost on the decision-making processes internal to organisations that make assumptions about behaviours, and then aim to improve these assumptions. In order to do so, a good ability to work with stakeholders, take their perspective, understand their constraints etc. is unavoidable personally.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
My advice to young behavioural scientists is to start by looking at the problems around you. You don’t need to wait for a big project or a job to start applying behavioural science—there are behavioural problems everywhere. Look at your daily life, your workplace, or your university, and start thinking about how you could apply behavioural science to solve a problem.
When I hired in the past, I was looking for awareness of the problems around you, and how you think about them. Show me your thought process, even if it’s just something you noticed in your own life. You don’t need to have worked with high-profile clients or have years of experience to demonstrate that you can think critically about behaviour. In fact, some of the best examples I’ve seen come from people who just applied behavioural principles to everyday problems.
It’s a fiercely competitive field right now, especially at the junior level, so you have to stand out by showing that you’re thinking about behavioural science in real-world terms, critically.
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
If behavioural science hadn‘t found me, I think I would have ended up studying mathematics or statistics. There is something about the logic and structure of math that makes me happy. I’d probably be hanging out as a data scientist now. That’s my realistic answer.
But if you want a fun answer, I might have gotten into speedcubing—solving Rubik’s cubes. I love solving them. Did you know there are more possible combinations of a Rubik’s cube than there are grains of sand on Earth? It’s absolutely mind-boggling. So, in another life, maybe I’d be competing in speedcubing competitions or doing something equally fun with puzzles and patterns.
How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
The biggest way I apply behavioural science in my life is through Bayesian reasoning. It’s something I learned during my PhD, and it completely changed the way I relate to the world. For me, it’s all about continuously asking, ‘What does the world look like in which I’m wrong?’. When I encounter new evidence which supports my current thinking, I always consider how likely it is that I would encounter this if my assumptions were incorrect – how much does this piece of evidence really help me distinguish between different worlds? I try to hold on to my own hypotheses loosely and keep track of alternative hypotheses, too and examine evidence under both. I am so grateful for having encountered Bayes theorem that I‘ve got it tattooed.
This approach has shaped the way I engage with controversial views as well. After working on Brexit and during COVID, where I dealt with conspiracy theories and public perceptions, I became really interested in understanding perspectives that are completely different from mine. It’s almost like a hobby for me now—engaging with views I fundamentally disagree with to challenge my own thinking and expand my horizons. I‘ve spent a lot of time on fringe telegram groups and if you looked at my YouTube feed, you’d probably think I was an alt-right extremist, because I actively seek out these types of content to understand how people with vastly different beliefs think.
In a sense, it helps me confront my own assumptions a lot. It‘s not always easy, but I try to keep an open mind and avoid taking my own positions for granted.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
One frustration I have is how defensive the field has become – clearly a symptom of something. There’s a lot of judgment and not enough perspective-taking. There’s sometimes this sense, especially online, that everyone thinks they’re the only ones doing behavioural science ‘right’. We’re probably all guilty of it—myself included—but it’s something that I would love to see change. Not to say that we shouldn‘t strive to improve the field, but being too judgmental with each other can get in the way of good collaboration to do exactly this. I think we need to stop assuming that others are wrong just because they’re not using the same methods or working in the same way. It’s something I’m working on myself—being more empathetic, patient, and understanding of the pressures others are facing (and yes, that includes those overpromising, overselling agencies…a work in progress from my end, and I do draw a strong line at “dishonest”).
Which other behavioural scientists would you love to read an interview by?
There are some brilliant people you should interview, especially from the UK government space, where a lot of the groundbreaking work is happening. Abigail Emery is fantastic; she’s now working in the UK gov‘s open innovation team and still doing great behavioural consultancy work across Government. Eleanor Prince is working at the Metropolitan Police, applying behavioural science to policing – how cool is that?
Paulina Lang is leading behavioural science for MMR, and she has this fascinating career trajectory where she moved from policy into the private sector, from Brexit to Pringles so to speak. And finally, Moira Nicolson is still at the Cabinet Office, holding the fort and continuing to apply behavioural science to some of the most complex issues in government. Each of these women has an amazing story to tell, and they’re all doing really important work that’s worth highlighting.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Laura!
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!
