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 Patrick Fagan.
Patrick is an applied behavioural science consultant, lecturer and Sunday Times best-selling author. Previously the Lead Psychologist at Cambridge Analytica, he is now the co-founder of two behavioural and data science focused businesses.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
Well, it was kind of around when I was 17 or 18, and TV shows like Big Brother were all over, and honestly, I was into it, as cringe worthy as that sounds. Also, dating psychology stuff was getting popular then, and as a 17-year-old guy, I found that interesting too. But what really hooked me was just figuring out why people make the choices they do, even when they’re not aware of it. I found that sort of secret insight fascinating—this idea that you could understand something about people that they might not know about themselves. And maybe there’s a bit of truth to what they say about people studying psychology to figure out their own issues. That might be in there too. But yeah, that hidden knowledge about human behaviour was what pulled me in.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what do you still want to achieve?
Probably personalized persuasion. I mean, I’ve been doing it before others, and honestly, I think I do it best, though that might just mean I don’t know others doing it. I’ve really focused on understanding how to customize messaging for different personality traits and even wrote a guide on it. Plus, I co-wrote a book last year on How Not to Get Nudged, which was a Sunday Times bestseller, and it was about fake news, real news, social media—all very relevant!
As for what I still want to achieve, I’d like to make behavioural science scalable—a solution people can buy. You know the saying—“make money in your sleep”—and that’s something I haven’t cracked yet. Behaviour science is so consulting-heavy; there’s a ceiling. I’ve talked to a few people who are financially successful in this field, like Jez Groom, who said the big-name academics might make millions or charge crazy rates, but for most of us, it’s not like that. So, I want to make behavioural science more of a product rather than something tied to hours worked.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?
The biggest one, which I’m sure everyone’s said, is AI. It’s both a tool and a massive challenge. On the one hand, it’s fantastic for personalized persuasion. If you need a message for an audience that’s, say, high in extroversion and conscientiousness, you can input that into an AI, and it will give you several options. It’s cheap and quick, which beats the old method of relying on creatives to come up with one idea at a time. But there’s a downside to AI, and it’s a big one—data quality. Even platforms like Prolific aren’t completely immune to AI bots, and I’ve seen it myself. You’ll read open-ended responses that just sound robotic. They’re not from real people.
Then there’s the idea of “artificial societies.” You can create thousands of AI personas, program them with different traits, and run psychological tests on them. It’s useful for research but risky because it’s all based on simulated people. How much can you really rely on the results when it’s all artificial? And then AI is coming for jobs too. There are already AI tools for web page optimization. If I’m asked to improve a landing page, I can get 20 ideas from ChatGPT and maybe find one that’s decent. It’s early days, but as it gets better, behavioural scientists will have to stay relevant or risk being replaced.
Another challenge is the replication crisis. I think it’s an issue across social sciences, but behavioural science has a lot of shaky ground—half the time, facts don’t last. In seven years, research findings are often debunked or updated, and that’s problematic. How can we base an entire field on findings that don’t hold up over time? It’s something we need to address.
Then there’s trust. People are losing trust in institutions, which means government nudges may not work like they used to. People are also getting wise to nudges and might even start using tools to disable them. I could see plug-ins that block nudges on websites, like the tools people use to avoid dark patterns now. With all this, behavioural science faces some serious challenges—it’s not just about the science but also about how we adapt to changes in technology, data quality, and public perception.
How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?
Looking ahead, AI is going to be the biggest factor shaping behavioural science, both as an opportunity and a challenge. With AI, especially for personalized persuasion, it’s already a huge help. Imagine how fast you can create tailored messages for different personality types or segments. You can ask ChatGPT or any AI model to come up with copy for a specific audience, say extroverts who are also conscientious, and it can give you something to work within seconds. Sure, it’s not perfect, and often you need 10 options to get one good one, but it’s fast and affordable. I think the industry will see more and more tools that allow us to personalize on a large scale, which we couldn’t do manually.
But there are challenges. For one, data quality will likely take a hit with AI bots sneaking into datasets. It’s getting harder to tell who is a real respondent and who isn’t. And there’s the rise of simulated “people,” so to speak, where you can program AI to act like different personality types. You can run experiments on these simulated groups to predict behaviour before testing with real people. It’s cool, but it’s also a bit shaky since you’re relying on something artificial to mimic actual human behaviour.
There’s also the job question—AI is going to come for some behavioural science roles, no question about it. Already, I can upload a landing page screenshot to ChatGPT and ask for optimization suggestions. It’s not great yet, but eventually, it could do most of what a behavioural scientist does. So we’ll have to adapt and find ways to make ourselves relevant, whether that’s by focusing on the human touch or doing work AI can’t easily replace. But overall, AI will change how we personalize, test, and analyse behaviour, for better or worse.
With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?
Honestly, I think the first skill is robustness. You need to be on top of the science, which changes all the time. I try to keep up to date with Google Alerts on behavioural science topics—at least a dozen of them—but it’s hard to say if you’re ever really on top of it. Just when you think you understand something, a study might come out that questions it or even debunks it, so you need to be ready for that. I think humility is a big part of this, knowing that even if you’ve done everything by the book, it might not work. And if it doesn’t, you need to face it and be okay with testing something new. You need to be ready to question everything, including yourself.
Communicating effectively is another skill that’s really essential. People aren’t going to read dense, technical documents or academic-style writing; they just won’t. It needs to be simple, visual, and something they can relate to immediately. For example, when I post on LinkedIn, I keep it short and accessible because that’s what people engage with. But in making things simple, you sometimes get people nitpicking in the comments, saying, “Oh, you left this out” or “This isn’t accurate.” So there’s a balance there. The goal is to get people interested and actually understanding it without overwhelming them with complexity.
I’d also say consistency and persistence. Consistency helps you gain traction, and persistence keeps you moving even when things don’t work the way you hoped. Networking is huge too, creating what some call a “luck surface area.” People think luck is random, but the truth is you make luck by putting yourself out there—by telling people about what you’re working on. So, talk about your projects, post online, do interviews, write articles, and share your work. The more people know about what you’re doing, the better your chances of something coming from it.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
Honestly, my biggest piece of advice would be to avoid being just a behavioural scientist. It might sound strange, but I think behavioural science works best as a tool you use, rather than an identity. Use it as a means to an end, not as the end itself. If you’re a UX designer who understands behavioural science or a marketer who knows about nudges and biases, you’ll be way more effective and valuable than if you’re just a “behavioural scientist.” Clients or employers don’t always care about the science part; they care about results—more sales, better engagement, higher retention. That’s what really matters to them, so use behavioural science to get there but don’t make it the whole story.
Another big thing is communication. You can be the smartest person in the room, but if you can’t explain what you’re doing simply and clearly, no one’s going to pay attention. I’m constantly making my work more visual, more engaging, and honestly, shorter. People don’t want a long lecture; they want clear insights they can act on.
Finally, persistence and networking are huge. The field’s competitive, so you need to put yourself out there—post online, share your projects, go to events, and make connections. You want to expand what people call your “luck surface area”—the more people know about what you’re doing, the more opportunities will come your way. So, work hard, communicate well, and use behavioural science as one tool in your toolkit, not the whole toolkit.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
There’s a political myopia in psychology and behavioural science. It’s a very left-leaning field, and I think that causes a lack of understanding and even empathy for parts of the population. Right-wing perspectives, for example, get pathologized more often, which I find frustrating. A lot of behavioural scientists pushed fear messaging during COVID, which I think was unethical and counterproductive. It caused unnecessary stress, resentment, and in some cases, it led people to rebel against the system. There weren’t enough behavioural scientists speaking up with a more balanced view, and I think we could have done better.
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
Well, I was in a band at one point, which did all right. I’d say if people listen to our songs, they’re generally surprised they’re actually good. Kerrang! gave us five stars—out of ten, mind you, but still, it was something. Also, I’ve always enjoyed writing and comedy, and it’s something I want to get back into. Writing brings me joy in a way no PowerPoint deck ever has. I mean, I’ve never seen someone actually smile at a PowerPoint deck. With writing or comedy, though, I think you can really connect with people, and, honestly, that’s something I’d still like to explore more of.
How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
I think subconsciously, yeah, it’s hard not to. My wife jokes about it—she once said, “Can I just have my own thoughts?” But, ironically, I’m very anti-manipulation in my personal life. I’m more of a live-and-let-live kind of guy, so I don’t try to influence people much outside of work. But for myself, I do try to apply it. I’ve done things like quit junk food, reduce screen time, cut down on drinking—all things where I try to use behavioural science principles. It’s slow and not easy, but I think behavioural science has definitely helped me change some of my own habits.
Which other behavioural scientists would you love to read an interview by?
I’d suggest Rory Sutherland if you haven’t already, Richard Shotton—he’s great at making things accessible, and Phil Agnew, who runs the Nudge podcast. These are people I think are really pushing the field in interesting directions and communicating the science well.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Patrick!
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!
Comments