Interview with Ben Brikman
- Merle van den Akker
- 16 hours ago
- 9 min read
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 Ben Brikman.
Ben is a Behavioral Scientist at Vanguard, where he works with a cross-functional team to improve financial outcomes for investors. Previously, he was a member of the interdisciplinary Behavior Change and Design team at Cityblock Health, applying behavioral science methods to improve health outcomes for marginalized communities. Before that, Ben helped launch and support the Behavioral Science Lab at Boston Consulting Group (BCG), an initiative focused on bringing human-centered approaches to organizational challenges. He also served as a lean experimenter and project manager on Walmart’s Applied Behavioral Science team, where he supported in-store experimentation. Ben holds a Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences from the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
I didn’t really know what I wanted to do when I was younger. In high school, I was actually in performing arts and theatre, and for a while I thought that was the direction I was going to take. I auditioned for colleges and enjoyed being part of that community, but I realised I didn’t love theatre in the way I thought I did when I was fourteen. At some point it just became clear that it wasn’t my long‑term path.
After that, I pivoted into pre‑business at my local college, once I decided theatre wasn’t for me. At the same time, I enrolled in a minor in global entrepreneurship, mostly because it sounded interesting and because I still didn’t really know what I wanted to do. That programme ended up being the real turning point. Through it, Walmart reached out looking to hire student researchers for what they called lean startup experiments, specifically in Sam’s Club stores.
Out of the students they hired, I was the one assigned to behavioural science, even though at the time I had no idea what that meant. I was nineteen, pre‑business, not even studying economics yet. I spent my days watching customers for hours, and then approaching people to ask why they did what they did. That process - observing real behaviour and talking to real people about their decisions -was what really hooked me. I liked it enough that I switched my major to economics and later studied behavioural economics in Maastricht during a semester abroad, where I realised for the first time that I genuinely enjoyed learning. It made me confident that this was a space I wanted to stay in. After that, I continued working with Walmart for several years, but I also realised that breaking into behavioural science as a full-time researcher wasn’t straightforward. I was encouraged to either pursue a PhD or gain broader experience elsewhere, which pushed me to look for master’s programmes focused specifically on behavioural science.
I went straight from undergrad into a master’s programme in behavioural and decision sciences (MBDS at Penn), while continuing to work and take on consulting-style projects across very different domains; from budgeting apps to healthcare and pharma. Those experiences weren’t always cohesive, but they gave me practical exposure and helped me understand how behavioural science could be applied in very different contexts. From there, I moved into management consulting, then into a healthcare startup, and eventually back into an industry behavioural science team. Looking back, it was a long and indirect path, but each role shaped how I think about behavioural science and why I’m still committed to working in this space.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
When I think about what I’m proudest of, it’s not a single project or finding. What stands out most to me is the work I’ve done with students and early‑career people trying to break into behavioural science. Not long after I graduated, I went back to help run design challenges similar to the ones that had given me experience during my master’s. I was very focused on asking students what they actually needed; what they wanted on their resumes, what kinds of roles they were aiming for, and how we could shape projects so they would feel confident in interviews.
I’m very intentional about shifting the focus away from what the company needs and toward what would help the students most. Asking questions like: what bullet points do you need, what skills are you trying to demonstrate, and how can we structure this work so you can clearly talk about it? Seeing them present their work, both in person and online, and actually feel proud of what they had done really stuck with me. It wasn’t some flashy result, but it felt meaningful.
What I still want to achieve is to keep working in organisations where behavioural science is embedded and taken seriously. I care a lot about working on long‑term financial and health decision‑making, especially because of what I’ve seen in my own family – as they are migrants who have struggled preparing for retirement and navigating the healthcare system here [in the US].
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
Behavioural science roles are scarce and extremely competitive. It’s now very normal to see hundreds of applications for a single role, many of them from highly qualified people. Because of that, the path into the field is often long and indirect. My own path included management consulting and startup work before I landed again in an industry behavioural science team.
I usually tell people not to fixate on landing the perfect first role. Starting somewhere adjacent, building experience, and doing side projects or volunteering can make a real difference. I know there’s debate around unpaid work, but for me, strategic volunteering helped me relearn fundamentals and perform better in interviews. At the same time, I encourage people to be honest about whether they actually enjoy the work. Behavioural science isn’t stable or easy, and it’s okay to take the toolkit into other roles if that’s a better fit.
With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?
One of the biggest things I’ve learned is that there isn’t a single, universal behavioural science skill set. It really depends on the team and the organisation. Some teams need strong data people—people who can build dashboards, set up data infrastructure, and think carefully about behavioural metrics. In those roles, you might still do behavioural science, but a large part of the job is technical.
Other teams need people who are much closer to consultants. That means translating research into something stakeholders can understand, managing relationships, and constantly selling the value of behavioural science. I’ve seen roles with the same title look completely different depending on what the team actually needed. Because of that, I always recommend that candidates ask teams directly what gaps they’re trying to fill – most teams are perfectly happy communicating that and making time for a call.
From my own experience, doing that helped me prepare better for interviews and also identify where I needed to brush up on skills, like statistics or experimentation methods. More generally, communication skills, flexibility, and a willingness to constantly relearn are essential. Behavioural science roles evolve quickly, and what’s required in one organisation might be very different in another.
How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?
I’m honestly not sure I have a clean answer to this, and I think that uncertainty is probably important. From what I’ve seen so far, behavioural science doesn’t really move in a straight line. It seems to ebb and flow depending on leadership, organisational priorities, and timing more than anything else. So when I think about the next ten years, I don’t necessarily think in terms of the field going clearly up or down, but more in terms of it changing shape depending on where it sits.
One thing I’ve noticed is that teams live or die a lot based on who is advocating for them internally. When that person leaves, things can change very quickly. I’ve seen teams dissolve, split apart, or get absorbed into other functions, not because the work stopped being useful, but because the organisation stopped understanding it as a distinct thing. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we continue to see behavioural science move in and out of different organisational forms rather than settling into one stable model.
There’s also a lot of conversation right now around AI, trust, and adoption, and behavioural science teams are understandably trying to position themselves there because it’s what organisations care about. I think that makes sense, but I also feel some hesitation about it. I don’t know if AI becomes a lasting core of what behavioural science does, or if it’s more of a moment where teams are trying to stay relevant. My hope is that it becomes one important application area rather than the entire identity of the field.
More broadly, I think behavioural science will probably continue to exist. It may become more embedded, more hybrid, and less visible as a standalone label, and I’m not convinced that’s necessarily a bad thing. That probably looks like some teams disappearing, others sticking around, and the discipline continuing regardless of structure.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?
One of the biggest challenges facing behavioural science right now is organisational legitimacy. Many teams still have to work very hard to prove that they’re more than a novelty or a “nice to have.” That means constantly demonstrating impact, translating work into business outcomes, and making sure senior leaders understand how behavioural science differs from adjacent functions like UX or marketing. This ongoing need to justify existence can be exhausting and makes long-term planning difficult.
Another major challenge as I’ve already mentioned is leadership turnover. Behavioural science teams are often built by a small number of advocates, and when those people move on, teams can quickly lose protection. I’ve seen cases where entire teams were restructured or dissolved not because the work wasn’t valuable, but because the new leadership didn’t understand it or prioritise it. That instability makes it hard to build institutional memory or develop long-term research agendas.
There’s also a credibility challenge within the field itself. Behavioural science still carries the legacy of replication issues and high-profile controversies, which makes some stakeholders sceptical. When teams lean too heavily on a small set of early, attention-grabbing findings without acknowledging those limitations, it reinforces that scepticism. Balancing accessibility with scientific rigour is an ongoing tension, and getting it wrong can undermine trust both inside and outside organisations.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
One frustration I have is how often behavioural science is presented through a few classic, eye‑catching findings, without enough scepticism. I understand why people do it—it’s engaging—but it ignores the reality that some influential work hasn’t held up.
Another frustration is that some senior figures don’t fully appreciate how hard it has become to enter the field. Advice that worked ten or fifteen years ago doesn’t always apply anymore. The landscape has changed, and I think we need to be more honest about that when talking to early‑career behavioural scientists.
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
If I hadn’t ended up in behavioural science, I think there’s a good chance I would have gone into marketing. There’s something about communicating with an end user and shaping messaging that I’ve always been drawn to. In a more ideal version of that path, I might have worked in marketing connected to the arts, combining creativity with strategy. Realistically, I probably would have ended up somewhere adjacent—still trying to understand people, just without calling it behavioural science.
How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
In a lot of ways, I’m a hypocrite. I don’t feel like I optimise my own life particularly well using behavioural science. That said, there are a few things I’ve taken seriously. One of the biggest is around self‑control and food. I know I’m impulsive, and I know that if certain foods are in my house, I’ll eat all of them. So instead of relying on willpower, I just don’t buy them. I’ll buy a single sweet if I want one, but I won’t buy a whole package. That’s something I’ve stuck to for years, and it’s worked better than trying to make good decisions in the moment.
Which other behavioural scientists would you love to read an interview by?
I’ve been very lucky to have mentors like Zarak Khan and Scott Young, both of whom have shaped how I think about applied behavioural science. Beyond them, I’ve been inspired by people like Cass Sunstein, whose work I’ve followed closely for a long time, and Ethan Kross, whose research on emotions and self‑control really resonated with me early on. I’m also consistently impressed by industry behavioural scientists who do rigorous, thoughtful work without necessarily having a public academic profile. I also believe you’d have a lovely time with some of my former colleagues from years past – specifically Rachel Banay, Julia Dhar and Sana Rafiq.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Ben!
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!
