Blog

Consultant hands pointing at AI strategy diagrams on tablet during collaborative consulting session with team members in background

Behavioural science is a fascinating field that combines insights from psychology, neuroscience, and sociology to understand how people make decisions. Despite its growing popularity, several myths persist about what behavioural science can and cannot do. In this blog post, we aim to debunk some of the most common misconceptions surrounding this discipline.Myth #1: Behavioural Science Equals Mind ControlAn often exaggerated belief is that behavioural science can be used for mind control or manipulation. This myth likely stems from a misunderstanding of the field's objectives. &nbsp;The uninformed may perceive behaviour science as “changing people against their will” &nbsp;Using psychological insights to steer behaviour without a person's awareness or consent is the equivalent of covert control or propaganda. Manipulation involves deception and hidden motives whereas good behaviour science is transparent, evidence-based, and aims to empower, not control. Behavioural science follows ethical frameworks such as beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and respect for autonomy and voluntary behaviour change. &nbsp;Behavioural science aims to understand human behavior to improve decision-making and societal outcomes, not to control or manipulate individuals against their will. Although techniques derived from behavioural science, such as nudging, are used to influence decisions, they operate by making certain choices easier or more attractive rather than coercing individuals. The effectiveness of these interventions relies on transparency and consent, ensuring ethical standards are maintained.Ethical standards adhered to include: OECD (2019): Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights. BIT (Behavioural Insights Team): Ethical Code of Conduct. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: The Nuffield Intervention Ladder – ranks interventions by how much they interfere with autonomy. APA Code of Ethics: Emphasises informed consent, beneficence, and respect.Myth #2: Behavioural Science Is Not Scientific Some critics argue that behavioural science is not a "real" science because it doesn't always rely on controlled experiments like those in physics or chemistry. However, this overlooks the rigorous methodologies employed by behavioural scientists.Behavioural science uses a variety of research methods, including experiments, surveys, and observational studies, to gather data and test hypotheses. This diversity in approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of complex human behavior.Myth #3: Behavioural Science is universally applied A common misconception is that findings from behavioural science can be universally applied without considering cultural contexts. Culture plays a crucial role in shaping behavior, and what works in one cultural setting may not work in another. Behavioural scientists must account for cultural differences when designing interventions or interpreting data. This ensures that the insights gained are relevant and applicable across different populations.While behavioural science offers powerful tools for understanding and influencing human behavior, it's important to recognise its limitations and avoid oversimplifying its capabilities. By debunking these myths, we can better appreciate the complexity of human behavior and the valuable insights this field provides.

What are the myths of Behavioural Science?

Researcher's hands analyzing colorful biomedical data visualization on computer monitor in bright laboratory workspace

Behaviour Change Science (BCS) is an interdisciplinary field concerned with understanding, explaining, and influencing human behaviour in real-world contexts. While contemporary discussions of behaviour change are often dominated by behavioural economics—particularly ideas such as nudge theory, fast and slow thinking, and heuristics and biases—this represents a relatively narrow view of human behaviour.Behavioural economics has made important contributions by highlighting predictable patterns in individual decision-making. However, it has also been criticised for over-emphasising cognitive shortcuts at the individual level, while insufficiently integrating the wider social, cultural, contextual, and systemic factors that shape behaviour. Humans are not isolated decision-makers; they are complex social animals whose behaviours are inherently multifaceted and embedded within social, ecological, political, and economic systems.A broader and more robust conception of Behaviour Change Science draws on evidence-based insights from across the natural sciences, neuroscience, ecology, evolutionary theory, social sciences, humanities, anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, political science, computer science, and the digital humanities. This interdisciplinary perspective recognises that behaviour emerges from the interaction between individuals, their social relationships, cultural norms, material environments, and institutional structures.Crucially, influencing behaviour for meaningful and sustained change is complex. Social, cultural, contextual, and situational factors interact in nuanced ways, meaning that simple information provision or awareness-raising is rarely sufficient. Understanding and predicting behaviour requires scientific insight into how information is processed in the brain, how decisions are made under real-world constraints, how habits and identities are formed, and how change spreads across social networks.Despite this, much psychological and behavioural research has historically sampled a narrow subset of global populations and then generalised findings to all of humanity. This has led to models of behaviour change that overlook diversity, power, inequality, and context—and which can be ineffective or even counterproductive when applied uncritically.These limitations are particularly evident in fields such as conservation and environmental action. To date, relatively little behavioural science research has been meaningfully integrated into conservation science, policy, or practice. Many campaigns remain rooted in outdated models of science communication that assume awareness will automatically lead to action. As a result, the impact of campaigns is often limited to increasing knowledge, with little evidence of sustained behavioural change. In some cases, interventions may even undermine motivation, reinforce undesirable norms, or create unintended consequences.Behaviour Change Science offers a way forward by shifting the focus from simply informing people to enabling change—designing interventions that align with how people actually think, feel, relate, and act within systems. It provides tools to translate research into practice, improve policy design, and create interventions that are not only evidence-based, but socially and contextually grounded.In short, Behaviour Change Science moves beyond awareness-raising to address the deeper drivers of behaviour—recognising that lasting change requires working with complexity, not against it.

What is Behaviour Change Science?

Close-up of two-factor authentication code entry on mobile device screen with security interface

Cybercriminals understand human behaviour and persuasion better than many organisations do! Every time a successful phishing attack makes the headlines, the response is remarkably predictable. "Employees need more awareness training." The assumption is simple: if people knew more about phishing, they would stop clicking malicious links.Yet despite years of awareness campaigns, phishing remains the most common entry point for cyberattacks. The problem isn't that people haven't been told what phishing looks like. Most employees can already identify the obvious warning signs.So why do intelligent, experienced people continue to click?The answer lies less in cybersecurity and more in behavioural science. The most successful phishing emails rarely rely on sophisticated technology. They rely on sophisticated psychology. &nbsp;Phishing isn't exploiting ignorance. It's exploiting how humans make decisions.Behavioural scientists describe two broad ways people process information. Systematic processing involves slowing down, critically evaluating information and checking whether something is genuine. It requires time, motivation, confidence and mental effort. Heuristic processing is the opposite. Instead, our brains rely on mental shortcuts to make thousands of decisions quickly and efficiently. Most of the time, these shortcuts work well as they allow us to respond to emails quickly and stay productive.&nbsp;&nbsp;The modern workplace creates the perfect conditions for heuristic thinking: back-to-back meetings, overflowing inboxes. constant notifications, competing priorities. When we're busy, distracted, or overloaded, we rely on simple rules of thumb. Modern phishing attacks are designed specifically to trigger these shortcuts while preventing careful, deliberate thinking. Attackers leverage familiarity using logos, branding and trusted language. These techniques aren't random. They're carefully engineered to trigger automatic behaviour.Trust and emotion are becoming the primary attack vectors.&nbsp; Research consistently shows that phishing messages triggering strong emotions achieve significantly higher success rates. Consider familiar examples: "Your account will be suspended.", 'Urgent payroll issue', 'A colleague needs immediate help' , 'You've won a prize'. Fear, Urgency, Curiosity, Excitement, Empathy,&nbsp; These messages aren't simply providing information. They're deliberately provoking emotion. The stronger the emotion, the less likely we are to slow down and verify. Behavioural scientists refer to this as the affect heuristic—people substitute an emotional reaction for careful analysis.Increasingly, phishing attacks increasingly impersonate: senior leaders, IT departments, suppliers, recruiters, charities, business partners, AI companies, colleagues whose accounts have been compromised. Rather than hacking systems, they're hacking relationships.Perhaps the biggest mistake organisations make is assuming that every phishing victim clicked for the same reason. The same observable behaviour can result from entirely different psychological mechanisms. Imagine six employees all clicking the same phishing email.<ul><li>One clicks because they're curious.</li><li>One because they're rushing between meetings.</li><li>One trusts their manager.</li><li>One fears their account will be suspended.</li><li>One is simply acting out of habit.</li><li>Another complies because the message appears to come from an authority figure.</li></ul>The behaviour is identical. The reasons are completely different. This is a crucial distinction. If we only measure clicks, we miss the behaviour driving them.Historically, organisations have approached phishing as though everyone shares the same problem: "People clicked because they didn't know better." Behavioural science increasingly suggests that's the wrong diagnosis. Instead of viewing phishing vulnerability as a knowledge deficit, we should understand it as a collection of different behavioural phenotypes. Some employees are primarily vulnerable to authority, others to curiosity, others to cognitive overload, others to optimism bias or low risk perception, others because they are naturally cooperative and want to help.Rather than recording only whether someone clicked, organisations should be asking why. Interventions become far more effective once researchers stop asking: "What information do people lack?" and started asking: "What behavioural mechanisms are driving this behaviour?"Simple post-click interviews or surveys can reveal the behavioural driver behind the action. For example:<ul><li>"It came from my manager, so I just got on with it." → Authority bias</li><li>"I was rushing through my inbox." → Cognitive overload</li><li>"I thought my account would be locked." → Loss aversion and fear</li><li>"I wanted to see what it was." → Curiosity</li><li>"I thought I was helping someone." → Reciprocity</li><li>"It didn't seem risky." → Low perceived risk</li></ul>These insights allow organisations to move beyond generic awareness campaigns and towards targeted behavioural interventions to tackle differing behavioural phenotypes.The future of phishing defence won't be built solely through better detection software or more awareness training. It will come from understanding human behaviour with the same sophistication that attackers already do. Cybersecurity professionals have become experts at diagnosing technical vulnerabilities; however, behavioural science offers the opportunity to diagnose human vulnerabilities with equal precision.Cybersecurity is beginning to undergo the same transition - every click deserves a behavioural diagnosis.

Hackers know employee behaviour better than organisations

Gloved hand holding pet waste removal tool with full bag in sunny residential backyard

More signs, same mess.As well as smelling unpleasant, dog waste can contain toxic bacteria, pathogens, and parasites, which are a potential health hazard to people, livestock, wildlife, and habitats, and soil runoff from the land contaminates waterways. The act of picking up by bagging (biodegradable bag) and binning dog waste to remove it from urban or rural public spaces by responsible dog owners is an important pro-environmental and pro-social behaviour in preventing the toxic spread of disease. &nbsp;Many factors influence and inform our decisions to dispose of dog waste consistently, across contexts. Signs are a common tool in public spaces, used to guide behaviour, influence decisions, and encourage compliance. Yet their effectiveness varies widely. &nbsp;By understanding how people respond to cues and perceive messages, we can design signage that drives meaningful behavioural change.&nbsp;A few real-world notices are illustrated here to highlight some key principles to consider when designing public messaging for behaviour outcomes.The ‘Informational/Implication’ SignMany dog-fouling campaigns rely on awareness of the consequences (health risks, fines, unpleasantness). In this example, the potentially harmful implications of dog waste on wildlife and children are highlighted.Knowledge and awareness alone is rarely sufficient to change habitual behaviours, particularly those embedded in routine activities like dog walking. awareness-focused campaigns often plateau at attitude change, with limited behavioural impact (Michie et al., 2011; Marteau et al., 2021).Fixed Penalty SignAlthough fixed penalty fines are designed to deter unwanted behaviour through negative reinforcement, they are seldom enforced, reducing their influence on compliance.&nbsp;Where enforcement is inconsistent or low, punitive or ambiguous signals tend to underperform, and can even backfire by normalising non-compliance or triggering reactance (Tyler, 2006; Sunstein, 2016). &nbsp;In practice, notices mentioning fines are more effective as social signals, reminding people of expected and acceptable behaviour. People are however more motivated to live up to a positive identity than to avoid punishment.The ‘Green Dog Walker’ Sign&nbsp;This intervention draws on several well-evidenced behavioural principles that consistently outperform punitive or fear-based approaches in public behaviour change campaigns. Rather than emphasising prohibition (“Don’t foul”), sanctions, or legal consequences, the sign asks: “Could you be a Green Dog Walker?” This framing activates positive self-identity rather than defensive reactions. It implies that responsible dog walking is the norm. It positions compliance as something “people like you” already do. It avoids highlighting non-compliance, which could normalise undesirable behaviour.A substantial body of evidence shows that people are more likely to adopt behaviours that align with a desirable identity they already value (e.g. being responsible, caring, community-minded). Identity-based messaging is particularly effective for pro-social and environmental behaviours (White et al., 2019). By positioning compliance as who you are rather than what you must do, the sign leverages intrinsic motivation rather than external enforcement.&nbsp;The invitation to “pledge your support” taps into one of the most robust findings in behaviour change science: commitment increases follow-through. Public or semi-public commitments increase behavioural consistency due to cognitive dissonance and self-perception processes (Festinger, 1957; Bem, 1972). Meta-analyses show that commitment and pledge interventions reliably improve pro-environmental and pro-social behaviours, particularly when framed as voluntary and values-aligned (Lokhorst et al., 2013; Baca-Motes et al., 2013). Even when the pledge is lightweight (e.g. online, symbolic), it increases the likelihood that individuals will see future actions (like picking up dog waste) as part of who they are.Overall, the ‘Green Dog Walker’ sign communicates expectations without coercion, making compliance feel like a choice rather than an imposition. Importantly, the pledge is voluntary, preserving autonomy, low friction, reducing barriers to engagement, identity-consistent, and reinforcing the “responsible dog owner” self-concept. Attention-grabbing indicators such as icons, footprints, arrows, or animal images can serve as positive nudges.&nbsp;The ‘Dog Poo Fairy’ SignHumour, especially satire, can cause a distraction or even lower the perceived credibility of the source, making the environmental message seem less serious or trustworthy. The type of humour matters: gentle, relevant humour is more effective than sarcasm that might prompt counterarguing or undermine seriousness. Becker and Anderson’s research on satire about climate change shows that more playful, sarcastic humour may be quickly discounted by audiences, meaning people simply tune out the comedic message without engaging deeply with the underlying environmental issue.&nbsp;The poo fairy also backfires by highlighting the prevalence of bad behaviour (“too many people let their dogs foul”), which research shows can normalise the undesirable behaviour (Cialdini et al., 1990; Schultz et al., 2007). &nbsp;Furthermore, it may have triggered psychological reactance, which is the tendency to resist messages perceived as controlling or threatening autonomy (Brehm &amp; Brehm, 1981; Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). Whilst the attempt at positive framing reduces psychological reactance, the moral licensing can undermine compliance and trigger reactance (White et al., 2019).&nbsp;Humour can draw attention, but it should usually be paired with clear, factual content to avoid distraction and discounting. &nbsp;Pre-testing messages with target audiences can help identify humour that enhances rather than dilutes impact.The ‘Community illustration’ Sign&nbsp;Co-design with the local community fosters a sense of ownership and shared responsibility. Social norms are among the most powerful drivers of environmental and civic behaviour, particularly when framed positively (Schultz et al., 2007; BIT, 2014).Crucially, this sign avoids public shaming or moral condemnation, which can trigger disengagement or oppositional identity formation. Harsh, punitive messaging can increase reactance and resentment, undermine trust in institutions, be less effective in low-enforcement contexts, and disproportionately alienate already compliant groups. Instead, it implicitly establishes a descriptive and injunctive social norm: responsible dog owners exist, and this is the expected behaviour in this place.&nbsp;In one report, observational evidence found that many dogs defecate within the first 5 minutes of a walk from the start of a site walk and distractions were identified to be one of the key determinants of failing to pick up and dispose of dog waste. &nbsp;Such findings suggest early positioning of dog waste bins. &nbsp;The built environment, context and situation can influence whether someone picks up after their dog. When viewed through a behavioural science lens, effective design thinking is fundamentally about making desired behaviours easy. If the pro-conservation action requires too much effort, signs alone won’t work. Nudges that highlight distance to the next bin with signs such as 'It’s easy to help: bins every 100m.' &nbsp;or painted paw prints leading to a bin with a sign: 'Follow the trail — keep the reserve clean.' could increase recall and compliance.The inconvenience of the bin location might be discouraging some users from properly disposing of waste.&nbsp; To overcome inconvenience, one council trialled a dog poop holding station for walkers to place bagged waste temporarily before picking it up on their return. This aimed to tackle the physical inconvenience; however, alone, it ignored social and cognitive drivers and relies on delayed prospective memory and intentions, i.e., “I’ll get that later,” which humans are particularly bad at. Whilst the council claimed there were reductions in abandoned waste, there were no clear quantitative measures in reduction nor long-term compliance rates and no comparison with control sites (i.e. with no trees). Even if the intended message was temporary storage, the observed behaviour looked like abandonment. Research consistently shows that visible norm violations increase copying, not compliance (Cialdini et al., 1990; Keizer et al., 2008). Whilst it looked to address inconvenience, it ignored identity and place, meaning, motivation, norms and cues.&nbsp; Making the undesirable behaviour more visible, the poo tree introduced ambiguity into norms by signalling the following descriptive norm: visible bags equate to &nbsp;‘this is what people do here’. When norms are unclear, people justify self-serving interpretations such as ‘Hanging it is easier than carrying it home’ and therefore socially defensible.&nbsp;&nbsp;Where bins are absent, perceived effort and low self-efficacy around carrying waste away become major barriers to compliance. &nbsp;The effectiveness of signs depend on aligning clear social norms with practical infrastructure, intuitive cues, and messages that respect people’s motivations and sense of place.Overall, the evidence from environmental, civic, and public health research is remarkably consistent: behaviour change is most likely to be sustained when interventions support autonomy, reinforce positive identity, and make the desired action easy and socially normal. When signs reinforce these things, compliance becomes the path of least resistance rather than a moral test.If you would like to explore evidence-informed approaches to behaviour change signage or public space design, please feel free to get in touch. ReferencesBaca-Motes, K., Brown, A., Gneezy, A., Keenan, E. A., &amp; Nelson, L. D. (2013). Commitment and behavior change: Evidence from the field. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(5), 1070–1084. https://doi.org/10.1086/667226Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., &amp; Burrows, L. (2001). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1–62). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6Behavioural Insights Team (BIT). (2014). EAST: Four simple ways to apply behavioural insights. Behavioural Insights Ltd.Brehm, S. S., &amp; Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., &amp; Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., &amp; Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322(5908), 1681–1685. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1161405Lokhorst, A. M., Werner, C., Staats, H., van Dijk, E., &amp; Gale, J. L. (2013). Commitment and behavior change: A meta-analysis and critical review of commitment-making strategies in environmental research. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511411477Marteau, T. M., Rutter, H., &amp; Marmot, M. (2021). Changing behaviour for net zero: What works, what doesn’t, and what’s needed. BMJ, 375, n2293. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2293Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., &amp; West, R. (2011). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42&nbsp;Reynolds-Tylus, T. (2019).Psychological reactance and persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 45(4), 403–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz004Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., &amp; Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.xSchultz, P. W., Messina, A., Tronu, G., Limas, E. F., Gupta, R., &amp; Estrada, M. (2018). Personal norms and the activation of pro-environmental behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 57, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.04.004Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The ethics of influence: Government in the age of behavioral science. Cambridge University Press.Thaler, R. H., &amp; Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.White, K., Habib, R., &amp; Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649Wood, W., &amp; Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit–goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843 &nbsp;

Are public notices effective (dog waste)?

Before designing any form of communication intervention, it is helpful to remind ourselves of fundamental principles of human behaviour:1. &nbsp; &nbsp;We are creatures of habit - as creatures of habit, we &nbsp;rely on mental shortcuts/heuristics and automaticity to cope and manage situations and avoid overload2. &nbsp; &nbsp;We like to achieve maximum gain for minimum effort - this tendency is generally a default in many contexts.3.&nbsp; &nbsp; Many behaviours are coping adaptations - being self-interested and short-term focused for our survival – this is coping, and a lot of what we do or don’t do is about coping with the demands of life4. &nbsp; &nbsp;We are social beings - as social beings who continuously react, interact and adapt our Behaviour according to the context/circumstances and feedback from our environment and others5. &nbsp; &nbsp;We do not respond well to being told what to do! - Being told what to do can feel like a direct threat our freedoms to the point where we immediately feel motivated to reject the advocacy despite how beneficial or aligned to our values.&nbsp;

BK Insights

What are the myths of Behavioural Science?

What is Behaviour Change Science?

Hackers know employee behaviour better than organisations

Are public notices effective (dog waste)?

5 Universal Behavioural Truths