Interview with David Villa
- Merle van den Akker
- 1 day ago
- 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 David Villa.
David is a Behavioural Science Leader at BeWay Consulting, where he operates at the intersection of behavioural science, experimentation, and organizational change. His experience has largely focused on the Latin American financial sector. He has collaborated with banks across multiple countries in the region to apply behavioural insights and turn evidence into practical growth marketing strategies that improve user adoption and customer experience. He does so by working closely with interdisciplinary teams across product, data, and design to drive measurable business outcomes.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
I came to behavioural science through philosophy. During my psychology studies, I had the opportunity to take courses in ancient and moral philosophy, and later to work within research groups in that area. That was the first time I seriously engaged with questions that later became central to my work: how we choose, how decisions are made, and what those choices imply for the way we live.
From that point on, I started seeing questions of choice and decision-making in almost everything I studied in psychology. Behavioural economics and economic psychology became an important part of that journey as well. Behavioural science emerged for me as a kind of bridge. It allowed me to connect philosophical and psychological questions with very concrete, real‑life problems across cultural, health, and financial contexts, where small individual decisions accumulate and generate enormous impacts for individuals, organisations, and collectives.
Bringing this way of thinking into growth strategy felt quite natural. I shared a question that many others in the field also seem to have: what if we used evidence and accumulated knowledge to design contexts that enable decisions to be made in ways that are faster, more satisfying, more transparent, and more ethical?
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
When I look back, the accomplishment I am most proud of is not an individual one. It’s not a specific experiment, a single intervention, or a one‑off result. What I’m proudest of is having been part of teams that genuinely care about integrating behavioural science in a serious and sustained way into strategic decision‑making, particularly in large‑scale financial contexts.
At Beway Consulting and BBVA Mexico, I’ve been fortunate to collaborate with people from very diverse backgrounds—product, data, design, business, legal—and with truly exceptional professionals. I see my greatest achievement as having learned from the people around me and building meaningful relationships while, together, we worked to make more informed decisions and design evidence‑based solutions that generate economic impact without losing sight of the people behind the numbers.
What I would still like to achieve is for this approach to scale even further. I would like the use of behavioural evidence not to depend solely on specialised teams, but to become a more distributed capability within organisations, so that more teams can think strategically about behaviour, experiment responsibly, and learn continuously.
How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?
I don’t think there is a single, clear trajectory for behavioural science over the next decade, and I’m not sure there should be one. From my perspective, the field is still in a phase of expansion and experimentation, and that naturally creates a lot of variation in how it is understood and applied. One aspiration I personally have is that behavioural science becomes less dependent on highly specialised teams and more ingrained as a way of thinking across organisations. That would mean more people being able to reason about behaviour, design experiments responsibly, and use evidence when making decisions.
At the same time, I think that kind of diffusion comes with real risks. Behavioural science has gained a lot of popularity, which is positive, but rapid growth also makes it easier for ideas to be oversimplified or applied without sufficient context. There is a danger that concepts lose their original depth when they are scaled too quickly or adopted without proper training. For me, the future of the field depends on how well we manage that tension between accessibility and rigour.
I also think behavioural science will continue to evolve in close relationship with other disciplines. Rather than existing as a clearly bounded field, it may increasingly overlap with AI, design, data science, product, and strategy. That interdisciplinarity can be very powerful if behavioural science maintains its reflective and evidence-based core. My hope is that, even as it becomes more embedded and hybrid, it continues to function as a practice that encourages questioning assumptions, testing alternatives, and learning from outcomes rather than simply validating decisions that have already been made.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?
One of the greatest challenges behavioural science faces today is maintaining conceptual and methodological rigour while operating at the pace required by contemporary organisations, especially in applied and consulting contexts. There is often pressure to move quickly, deliver results, and adapt to business timelines, which can make it difficult to fully explore problems or design robust interventions. Narrowing the gap between depth, rigour, and real-world effectiveness is, in my view, one of the central challenges of the field.
Another major challenge is achieving sustained impact. Finding that an intervention works in a single experiment or pilot is often only the first step. The more difficult task is integrating those learnings into products, processes, and organisational routines in a way that lasts. Too often, behavioural insights remain tied to isolated projects or specific individuals, rather than becoming part of how organisations continuously learn and adapt.
Finally, there is a broader challenge around how behavioural science is understood and used. When it is treated primarily as a toolkit of techniques or a way to label decisions as “behaviourally informed,” it risks losing its critical and reflective function. Ensuring that behavioural science is used to genuinely question assumptions, surface ethical considerations, and improve decision-making—rather than simply justify existing choices—remains an ongoing challenge for the field.
With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?
Beyond technical knowledge, one of the most important skills is intellectual humility. Behavioural science deals with real people in complex and constantly changing contexts, so assuming we never have the full answer is a helpful framing. Empathy and teamwork are also essential. Most of the impact happens through collaboration with other disciplines, which requires listening, understanding different priorities, and building solutions together rather than imposing theoretical frameworks.
It’s also crucial to engage with the real world—to get your hands dirty and work within real constraints of time, budget, and systems. That often means negotiating between methodological rigour and practical feasibility: doing the best possible work with what is available at a given moment, and actually doing it.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
I would tell them not to try to have all the answers too early. It’s important to embrace uncertainty, make mistakes, adjust, and rebuild along the way rather than accumulating certainties. I would also encourage them not to remain exclusively within the academic bubble, but to complement theory with practical experience as early as possible.
Empathy and teamwork matter enormously. Impact is rarely individual, and interdisciplinary collaboration is central to applied behavioural science. Working with people and markets that don’t speak academic or methodological language can be challenging, but it’s also deeply constructive and improves the quality of the work.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
My main frustration is when behavioural science is treated as a label or a magic formula—something that automatically makes decisions better. When used in that way, there is a risk that behavioural science is framed more as a means to an end, instead of as a way to ask better questions, learn, and improve.. Like many tools, behavioural science depends on how it is used. I’ve been fortunate to work with teams that actively discuss the limits of interventions and ask uncomfortable questions, which I see as a valuable way of engaging with the field..
If you weren’t a behavioural scientist, what would you be doing?
I’m not entirely sure, but I like to think it would be something that allowed me to keep learning. I can imagine myself working in areas related to audiovisual, literary, or creative experiences—somewhere at the intersection of creativity and analysis. At a deeper level, I think I would still be trying to understand how people interpret the world and make decisions, just using different tools or methods. Behavioural science is where all of that came together for me, but I believe there are many paths to exploring those questions.
How do you apply behavioural science in your personal life?
I apply behavioural science in a very ordinary, unspectacular way. I don’t try to optimise every decision I make. Instead, I try to stay attentive to the intentions embedded in contexts we inhabit and how they encourage certain actions. I like to think I apply behavioural science most by being more patient with myself and with others. Inconsistency and error are human traits, not personal failures. Approaching decisions with more calm has changed my relationship with habits, money, and decision‑making.
Which other behavioural scientists would you love to read an interview by?
I don’t have specific names in mind, but I’m particularly interested in people who constantly translate evidence into practical decisions in real and diverse contexts— technology, government, healthcare, public policy. I also value critical voices within the field, especially those who question behavioural science from within and engage with issues of ethics and the limits of interventions. Those conversations may be uncomfortable sometimes, but they are essential if the field is to mature and remain relevant.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions David!
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!
