Interview with Brian Nosek
- Merle van den Akker
- Jul 6
- 7 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 Brian Nosek.
Brian is Executive Director of the Centre of Open Science and a professor at the University of Virginia. His research and applied interests are to understand how people and systems produce values-misaligned behavior; to develop, implement, and evaluate solutions to align behavior with values; and, to improve research methods and culture to accelerate progress in science. Brian also co-developed the Implicit Association Test, a method that advanced research and public interest in implicit bias. And then he co-founded three non-profit organizations: Project Implicit to advance research and education about implicit bias, the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science to improve the research culture in his home discipline, and the Center for Open Science (COS) to improve rigor, transparency, integrity, and reproducibility across research disciplines.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
The original way I got into behavioral science was as an undergraduate. I was a computer engineering major, and toward the end of my third year, I started taking psychology and women’s studies classes on the side for a break from the engineering classes. All of my engineering grades started to decline because I was spending all my time thinking about these amazing, interesting courses. So, I switched my major to psychology and got a minor in women’s studies, leaving engineering behind—though it became relevant again later.
Once I got into psychology, I became very interested in the concept of gender. I had never felt interest in my own identity in gender, and I didn’t understand how people coded the world in gendered terms. That’s why women’s studies was so interesting as an academic subject. I applied to graduate schools to work with someone on gender bias and stereotypes, and I ended up at Yale with Mazarin Banaji. She and Tony Greenwald had just invented the Implicit Association Test, and I got there just as they were figuring it out. I was fascinated.
I also had this background in computer engineering, and during my work on gender differences in science and math, I realized I could apply those skills. I thought, "We should really do this IAT thing on the Internet." I convinced Mazarin and Tony that I could build a website, even though I didn’t know if I actually could. But I did, and that opened up a whole new way to collect data—millions of data points over the years. That success showed me how tool-building could improve our research capabilities, and that idea has guided much of my work since.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
I feel a lot of gratitude for being able to do the things we’ve done, but what’s been most gratifying is seeing the level of volunteerism. People in the field saw these issues and contributed their time for very little reward. All these big projects—many labs, reproducibility projects in psychology and cancer biology—people say, "Brian did that project." But I didn’t. Hundreds of people contributed critical work, but I get the credit. That’s been very gratifying.
Looking forward, our organizational goal is to increase openness, integrity, and reproducibility in research. I feel like we’ve made a lot of progress but have only scratched the surface. We’re still in the low-hanging-fruit phase of improving research practices. Science as a system is very conservative. Peer review today looks like it did in the 1960s, even though everything else in the world has evolved. I want to flip that—so that science is always innovating on how it does its work, not just what questions it asks.
How do you think behavioural science will develop in the next 10 years?
If we look at the reforms that have gained traction—pre-registration, data sharing, more open sharing of materials and code—right now, these practices are still in the single digits or low teens in terms of adoption across published literature. That’s coming from basically zero ten years ago, so it’s real progress. But I’d love to accelerate that trend. If it’s at 10% now, let’s push for 30% or 40% in ten years.
Beyond more adoption, we need better execution. Right now, a lot of data sharing is useless because the data is so poorly organized. People pre-register, but leave out critical information. That’s normal—new behaviors take time to refine. We also need to focus more on the researcher as a consumer of research, not just as a producer. The peer review process needs reinvention. We need better ways to evaluate research credibility beyond a few reviewers’ opinions at one moment in time.
Another key shift I hope to see is more interdisciplinary collaboration. Behavioral science has historically borrowed methods and insights from psychology, economics, neuroscience, and sociology, but there is still room for more integration across fields. I’d like to see behavioral scientists working more closely with data scientists, AI researchers, and policy experts to develop more robust, scalable, and impactful solutions. If we can foster these collaborations while improving transparency and reproducibility, we could see some real leaps forward in the next decade.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science right now?
One of the biggest challenges is systemic inertia. A lot of people have proposed changes that make total sense, but they haven’t caught on because they require coordinated movement. Researchers know how to succeed under the current system—get published in high-impact journals, get citations, get tenure. Trying something new is risky if no one else is doing it.
That’s why our approach is to meet researchers where they are. If you publish in Lifecycle Journal, it looks like a journal, it works like a journal, and you can list it on your CV like a journal. But behind the scenes, it innovates on the process. That way, we enable change without requiring risky leaps of faith.
Another challenge is bridging the gap between academia and applied behavioral science. There is still a divide between research conducted in universities and its application in industry, government, and non-profit work. Many important findings don’t make their way into real-world practice because they aren’t communicated effectively or because incentives in academia don’t align with practical implementation. We need better mechanisms for translating behavioral insights into policy and business decisions while maintaining scientific rigor.
What skills are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Any recommendations you’d make?
The skill that’s going to become more important is being a methods builder. It’s not just about applying a method that already exists—it’s about improving it. If we take data collection on the Internet, that innovation alone dramatically changed the questions we could ask. The same is true for many labs collaborations, improvements in survey methodology, and advances in neuroscience tools. Our field often valorizes theory at the expense of method, but method enables the advancement of theory. We need to embrace that.
Beyond technical skills, adaptability and critical thinking are crucial. Behavioral science is evolving quickly, and researchers must be willing to question assumptions, refine methodologies, and integrate new techniques from other fields. Understanding data analysis, experimental design, and computational methods will be increasingly valuable. Additionally, effective communication is a vital skill. Being able to convey findings clearly to diverse audiences—including policymakers, business leaders, and the general public—will determine how impactful our work truly is.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists?
Be really clear about what you want and identify multiple paths to achieve it. If your only acceptable career outcome is "professor at top university X," you’re setting yourself up for a lot of stress. The academic job market is tight. Be flexible, be planful, and explore all possible avenues where you can make an impact.
Also, don’t buy into the idea that academia is the only "successful" path. There are amazing opportunities in industry, government, and non-profits. A fulfilling career isn’t about a specific title—it’s about finding work that aligns with your values.
What is your biggest frustration with the field?
The use of the word "utilize." It’s just "use." It means the same thing, and it’s shorter, easier, and less obnoxious. Yet, for some reason, people keep using "utilize" to sound more academic, even though it doesn’t add any additional meaning. It’s a small thing, but it’s emblematic of a broader issue—academia sometimes values complexity and jargon over clarity and accessibility. If we want behavioral science to have a greater impact, we should aim to communicate more simply and effectively!
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
If I had stayed in computers, I probably would have been happier in computer science than in computer engineering. Coding was more interesting than circuits. But the real sliding doors moment was when I emailed Mazarin Banaji. My application was already in the reject pile. She called the next day, saw my computing background, and asked me to send letters fast. If I hadn’t emailed her, I wouldn’t have gone to Yale, worked on the IAT, or started this whole trajectory.
How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
I have a point system for myself for health and work goals. I maintain a spreadsheet where I set expectations and track my behaviors daily. It’s structured with clear, countable goals. For example, if I eat no red meat five days a week, I get full points for that category. It incorporates every behavioral principle—making goals concrete, easy to track, and rewarding progress.
Which other behavioural scientist would you love to read an interview by?
Tony Greenwald, my mentor’s mentor, is a huge inspiration. He identified many of the issues we’re addressing today decades before we started. Mazarin Banaji, my direct mentor, showed me what’s possible—not just in the field, but in what I personally could achieve. They’d both be fantastic interviewees.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Brian!
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!
