Interview with Matt Baldwin

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 Matt Baldwin.

Matt earned his PhD in social psychology from Kansas, spent 4 years in Germany as a post doc, and then 3 years as an assistant professor at Florida. Eventually, he realized that he wanted to apply social psychology to have an impact outside of academia and for the last 3 years has been part of behavioral science teams in the digital wellness space, at Calm and Noom. Matt is passionate about democratizing behavioral science and putting its power in the hands of the people that  want to drive change and have impact in their organizations and in the world. He is currently pursuing this mission as the Director of Customer Experience at Hive Science, an early-stage tech start up at the intersection of marketing, behavioral science, and AIML. He is excited to be working with some of the world's biggest brands to build a movement of people doing impactful behavioral science at scale in a whole new way.

---

How did you get into behavioural science?

I started as a psychology major in undergrad after taking AP psychology in high school and really falling in love with the subject. However, I soon switched to music education. During a summer trip to South Korea however, I noticed I couldn’t differentiate the faces of the people there, which sparked a deep curiosity into why this was. When I returned, I learned about the "cross-race effect," a phenomenon where people struggle to recognize faces of other races. It just so happened that a professor at my university, Kurt Hugenberg, was an expert in this area. I reached out to him with questions, and he immediately invited me into his lab, which was pretty unusual for an undergrad. I switched my major back to psychology, and he let me run my own studies in his lab. I loved the whole process—running experiments, presenting research, and working in the lab. That experience ultimately led me to pursue grad school, a postdoc, and eventually a career as a professor. A few years ago, I left academia for industry, but that pivotal moment in Korea, combined with a supportive mentor, really shaped my path. If not for that trip or Kurt, I might still be a music teacher today!

Throughout that journey, what was your biggest achievement? And what do you still want to achieve?  

I don’t have a single achievement that stands out, but I’m proud of various papers, theories, and collaborations. However, what gives me the most joy is seeing others discover something new on their own through behavioral science. Whether it’s a student in my lab who comes up with an idea, tests it, and writes a paper, or a student in my social psychology and film class who starts seeing the world through psychological principles, those moments are the most rewarding.

Even in my current role, seeing a stakeholder or client make a connection, like when a product manager suggests testing an idea using a psychological principle, is incredibly fulfilling. That’s when I feel my job is done. I view myself as a torchbearer for this way of thinking, helping others apply these concepts to solve problems and drive impact.

So what films do you watch in your film class that really highlight these principles?

As for favorite films in my teaching, Her by Spike Jonze is always a fun one. We explore whether it’s possible to have a relationship with a robot and use it to discuss attachment theory. We end with Ex Machina, which challenges students to question what it truly means to be human, flipping the semester’s lessons on their head.

---

Given your clear passion for this, tell me, how did you come to the decision to leave academia?

Leaving academia was tough, but I struggled with the misalignment between the potential of behavioral science and academia's slow, merit-based system. I found it frustrating that research was often locked behind paywalls, and much of my time was spent on committees and writing revision letters rather than making a real impact. I also disliked seeing students struggle financially. Outside academia, I’m able to use behavioral science in more practical, impactful ways, mobilizing teams and inspiring others to apply these principles in real-world contexts, which aligns better with my values.

So given that you've been on both sides of the fence, how do you see behavioural science develop? 

Behavioral science is currently experiencing growing pains as the academic and industry worlds can seem adversarial. Academia often resents how industry pulls people away or the speed at which it applies scientific concepts, questioning whether the science is sound. Over the next decade, this tension will need addressing, but I don't see it as "bridging" the two worlds. Instead, both academia and industry share the same goal: using science to create a positive impact, whether through developing new theories or solving real-world problems.

Rather than maintaining a divide, these fields should work more closely together. Academia could evolve by training people for non-academic roles and making research more accessible, while industry could open its data for academic research. There’s potential for more collaboration, such as academics sitting on company boards or taking sabbaticals in startups to apply their expertise to product development.

In both sectors, science can be more effectively integrated. Industry often focuses on design, using principles like "loss aversion" in marketing or product management. While this is a good start, it’s not true scientific application. A more rigorous scientific method could be used in product iteration and decision-making, creating a blend of academic rigor and practical impact.

Very fair.  Is that your ultimate achievement? Would that be like a crowning pinnacle of your career, given that you've made the transition? 

That's a very insightful question! I don’t think I’ve hit my ultimate achievement yet, but I feel like I’m moving in the right direction. When I started out as a statistician for a meditation app, and later a weight-loss app, I was still doing a lot of validation work—running RCTs to prove the app worked and publishing papers that no one really read. It was all about getting the stats to back up sales decks or to ‘validate’ something that was going to launch anyway, not using science to actually inform the product.

At Noom, I had one foot in the product world and started getting questions like, “What does social psychology say about building a community?” or “Why are people cancelling so much in the first week?” I felt like behavior design and psychology could answer those questions, so I fully transitioned into being a product-focused behavioral science researcher, helping to shape features and user experience.

But even in that role, I felt like I didn’t have all the tools I needed, which is why I joined the team at Hive Science. Currently I head up the customer experience function at Hive, and it's another step toward what I’m ultimately aiming for: making behavioral science accessible to everyone—whether it’s a company, nonprofit, or anyone trying to solve real-world problems. We’re working with some of the world’s biggest brands to bring psychological science to researchers and creatives alike, and doing it at scale. I can’t wait until we can share more but I really think what we’re developing will change the way we build brands and products in the future.

Ultimately, behavioral science is the key to solving some of the biggest challenges we face, from big systemic problems like climate change to simple acts like getting a vaccine. We’ve used hard science to solve issues in health, medicine, and technology, but behavior problems have lagged behind. I want to help shift the world to a place where it’s obvious that behavioral science is critical for solving these kinds of problems, with no barriers between industry and academia. That’s the direction I’m headed.

---

So realistically, what do you think the challenge is then for getting to the vision that you've just described. Why is it so difficult to get these problems (i.e. climate change) recognized as behavioral problems?

One of the biggest challenges in getting problems like climate change recognized as behavioral issues is that everyone, in a sense, sees themselves as a "lay behavioral scientist." We all observe the world, form hypotheses, and test those hypotheses against our own experiences. So, people often feel like they already know the answers intuitively, without the need for rigorous scientific methods to truly understand the problem.

In contrast, no one considers themselves a "lay chemist" when it comes to curing disease through medical research! We are very comfortable leaving those challenges up to the trained scientists, but when it comes to behavior change, many believe their intuition or design skills are enough to fix the issue. This mindset creates resistance to using scientific methods to collect data and analyze behavioral problems.

Another hurdle is the perception that social science isn’t as “hard” as fields like chemistry or biology. Or the opposite, where people may feel that behavior is too complex or subjective to be understood scientifically, favoring empathy and human judgment over data-driven models, which can further hinder progress. We just haven’t reached the point where systematic psychological science is the default when building brands or products, or when trying to affect social change outside of academia.

So then realistically, what skill set is required to get over that problem?

To move beyond being a lay psychologist and become a skilled behavioral science practitioner, the key skill is learning to observe the world in a way that focuses on signal rather than noise. This means recognizing systematic, general patterns in human behavior and avoiding the distractions of anomalies or randomness. Pattern recognition is essential at the observation stage.

While a practitioner doesn’t need to be an expert in quantitative analysis, understanding the concept of uncertainty and how to separate signal from noise is critical. Every observation comes with some uncertainty, and a skilled behavioral scientist must design tests and hypotheses that maximize the likelihood of identifying true patterns.

The ability to interpret results without letting noise influence conclusions is also important. This process of extracting actionable insights from valid observations is what distinguishes a trained behavioral scientist from a layperson, and it's a skill often honed in PhD programs.

Ah you're skipping ahead to the next question already: how does one get those skills? Or rather, for someone who's interested to get into behavioural science, what would you advise that they do?

For someone interested in behavioral science, the path depends on their values and goals. A PhD can be rewarding, offering the chance to dive into research, collaborate, and train deeply in scientific thinking—almost like "Jedi training." However, it's not for everyone, and it requires a lot of time and commitment.

If a PhD isn’t the right fit, gaining hands-on experience is crucial. Working on a team in a junior role or pursuing a master’s degree can help. It's not enough to just read books or take certification courses; you need to see the scientific method in action and practice it yourself. As long as you find a way to become comfortable with the practice and the tools.

---

Then I'm going to ask you the skills questions again, but now from the perspective of what you think the most useful skill was that allowed you to transition from academia into corporate?

Oh, looking back, I definitely didn’t have the right skills to transition from academia to corporate; but one of the most valuable attributes I did have was a network. However, I don’t see networking as building fame or reach. Instead, it's about shrinking your world so you're more likely to bump into people who can help you. It’s about connecting with people who are doing what you want to do or knowing people in organizations where you'd like to work. The more you grow that network, the smaller your professional world gets, making opportunities more accessible.

That’s how I got my first job outside academia. A former postdoc colleague mentioned an open position at dinner, and I quickly applied through her. I learned later that I got a ‘yes’ from everyone on the hiring committee except the business partner, because of course I had no experience in industry! I struggled in the interview with business-related questions – and although my science background carried me through, I’m not sure I would’ve gotten that lucky again. This is something they don’t teach you in grad school.

So this is the one thing I tell people to work on and develop before transitioning to industry from academia—learn how to frame your academic skills in ways that make sense to the role or the team you are applying to . Most people coming out of a PhD or undergrad program already have the abilities they need to do the research. The challenge is translating those skills into a language that demonstrates their value to business stakeholders.

So if we're being very honest, and I'm going to keep harping on the skills question, because you have very interesting perspectives on it: if you are hiring for a behavioural scientist position, what's the core skill that you're looking for? 

When hiring a behavioral scientist, I'm looking for someone who can move efficiently from problem to solution and then communicate that solution in a way that resonates with stakeholders who have no technical background. It’s about knowing the technical steps—whether it's running a latent growth curve model or machine learning model—to solve a problem, but then presenting the outcome in a simple, engaging story that gets others on board.

Academics often struggle with this, as they’re trained to be the "hero" in their field—first author, top citations, strongest theories. In industry, you need to let go of that mindset. You’re not the hero here. The product manager, the designer, or the chief officer—they need to see themselves as the hero, using your insights to drive success. A good behavioral scientist knows how to guide stakeholders to the solution without needing to compete for the spotlight.

I’m looking for someone who has learned to be a guide rather than the star, who can offer reliable, actionable insights, and tell a compelling story. I'd probably ask about their experience mentoring or advising others, as this skill often overlaps with guiding stakeholders in a business setting.

Well, thank you for giving us your recruitment blueprint! Now onto the last set of questions, which are more light-hearted in nature. First, what do you think would have happened to you if you hadn't found behavioural science? Do you think you would have become a band teacher, as you said earlier? 

If I hadn’t found behavioral science, it’s hard to say where I’d be. After a really embarrassing recital, I quit music, so I doubt I’d be a band teacher. Maybe I would’ve done something in psychology like counseling, but if I could choose anything without consequences, I’d probably be an adventure guide—maybe a fishing guide. I love the water and helping people have meaningful experiences, like catching a fish for the first time.

At one point, I even considered opening a coffee shop. I got into tasting and roasting, but after a mishap where I inhaled boiling coffee and sprayed it everywhere, I reconsidered that path too!

---

Talking about decision making in general, do you apply behavioural science to your own life, or does it never really make it past the front door? 

Yes, I do apply behavioral science to my life, though not always in a systematic way. For example, I’m very much on the “assessment” side of the locomotion-to-assessment spectrum. When I’m making decisions, like buying a mattress or picking wine, I gather as much data as possible. I manually review multiple sources, line up the feedback, and simulate potential outcomes in my head—especially if I’m considering different options.

I collect data, analyze it, and iterate on my choices, which is pretty close to the scientific method. My wife, on the other hand, makes decisions quickly, relying more on intuition. Given that she makes decisions much more quickly, she might have the better approach!

And last but not least, throughout your journey, who has inspired you the most as a behavioural scientist?

Many people have inspired me at different stages of my career. Matt Wallaert really stood out when I first became a leader of a Behavioral Science team and had no idea what I was doing. His approach to leadership and practical application of behavioral science helped shape my thinking. Amy Bucher has also been a huge influence, especially in terms of thinking in a more design-focused way.

But right now, Michael Delaney is the person who inspires me the most. He co-founded Nuance, has worked in startup accelerators, and is now at Accenture’s innovation lab. He’s not a traditional scientist but an entrepreneur who applies behavioral science to drive innovation. He’s constantly pushing boundaries—he even recently went on a two-week silent retreat at a monastery. Despite being in his mid-20s, he’s accomplished a lot, and we chat regularly. I admire his passion for bringing behavioral science into German industry and making an impact in a more entrepreneurial way.

People like Matt, Amy, and Michael represent different aspects of what I think is key for the future—merging the academic and entrepreneurial worlds to drive real, impactful change.

---

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Matt!

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!