Interview with Enrique Belenguer Saborit

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 Enrique Belenguer Saborit.

Enrique ('Quique') is currently working at BBVA as Behavioral Economics Global Leader. Specialized in applying behavioral sciences to enhance customer experience and business performance, Quique has extensive experience implementing behavioral insights across countries. Part of his role involves the development of BBVA’s BE knowledge, innovation and experimentation. He also works on several BE projects within the bank, such as the ones related to Payment Methods, Pricing or Loyalty schemes.

---

Who or what got you into behavioural science?

I think it comes from different places, but ultimately, the same source—just from different signals. I was working in market research, asking people why they chose one product over another. One day, a colleague gave me Predictably Irrational, and it struck me how irrational decision-making truly is. Around the same time, another colleague, a psychologist, introduced me to Don't Think of an Elephant by George Lakoff, which made me realize the power of words and framing in shaping thoughts and decisions.

Then, on a visit to London, I picked up Thinking, Fast and Slow. That was my ‘aha’ moment—it pieced everything together. These books ignited my interest, but I still felt like an imposter. I’d only read three popular books, not deeply studied the field. So, I enrolled in the Executive Master’s in Behavioural Science at LSE. That’s when things solidified for me—not just the tricks and anecdotes, but also the importance of statistics and experimentation. That was my beginning.

Currently, I work in one of the largest behavioural science units in banking. When I joined, we were a small team of just three people, but we have since grown to around 50 internal behavioural scientists, with an additional 50 external collaborators. Our unit has expanded beyond small-scale nudges and interventions to embedding behavioural science throughout the organization—from cybersecurity and human resources to digital product design and customer decision-making. The focus has always been on understanding decision processes at a deeper level and applying behavioural insights in ways that provide real, measurable value to the business. This approach has helped position us as a core part of the company’s strategy rather than just an advisory function.

What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?

What makes me proud isn’t a specific project, but the fact that we’ve convinced so many people in our organization that behavioural science matters. Seeing people reframe business problems based on behavioural insights is rewarding. When you ask a question and they say, “I hadn’t thought about it like that,” that’s success for me.

As for what I still want to achieve, I’d love to create a more structured framework for behavioural science. Right now, we have scattered models—EAST, MINDSPACE, Rubicon, COM-B—but no unified toolkit. It makes training new team members harder because it feels like a random collection of ideas rather than a cohesive discipline. If we had a structured, standardized framework, it would streamline our training processes, enhance collaboration, and create a shared language for behavioural scientists across industries. A structured model would also help in scaling behavioural science teams effectively and ensuring consistent, high-impact applications of our methods.

---

How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?

I’ll start with what I see in my organization because that’s clearer. We started in the digital space, working on emails and messages, tweaking communications. But now, we’re moving into physical spaces—branches, call centers—where experimentation is much harder. That’s a big challenge, but it’s exciting. We’re thinking about how behavioural science can shape real-world interactions, not just digital ones. So, in the next few years, I see us moving more in that direction, working on assisted channels, decision-making in complex environments, and human interactions in financial services.

Looking beyond my organization, I think the field is moving in different directions. Some teams are closing down, while others are growing. It depends on whether they’ve embedded themselves in their company’s priorities. If behavioural science teams are just tweaking things at the margins—playing with wording or running isolated experiments—they won’t last. But if they’re solving big, strategic problems, they’ll thrive. I think we need to be embedded in the core priorities of organizations, not treated as a nice-to-have.

Another big shift is that we need to move away from short-term nudges and focus more on systems. It’s not enough to optimize a single behaviour if it creates unintended consequences elsewhere. For example, if you encourage people to save more for retirement, but they increase their credit card debt as a result, that’s not real progress. We need to take a broader view, looking at behavioural ecosystems rather than isolated interventions.

I also think we’ll see more specialization. Right now, a lot of behavioural scientists are generalists, but that’s changing. We need experts in behavioural science applied to cybersecurity, to sales, to human resources—people who deeply understand both the behavioural science and the specific domain they’re working in. That’s what I think will make teams more effective.

Ultimately, I think the field is at a turning point. Either we become indispensable, or we fade away. The next decade will be about proving our value, embedding ourselves in decision-making structures, and making sure we’re not just running experiments for the sake of it, but actually solving the problems that matter most to organizations and society.

What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?

First, get hands-on experience. Too many people come in with just a degree but no practical application. You don’t need to have worked in a behavioural science role to gain experience—start a project, run an experiment, apply these ideas wherever you can. I’d rather hire someone who has done a small-scale behavioural experiment than someone who has just read all the books.

Second, don’t just focus on behavioural science—focus on an industry. If you want to work in finance, understand finance. If you want to work in healthcare, learn about healthcare. Behavioural science is a toolset—it’s most powerful when applied to a specific problem space. The best behavioural scientists are the ones who understand both the science and the business context they work in.

And lastly, don’t fall into the trap of thinking you have to have the perfect answer. Behavioural science is about testing and learning, not just knowing. A lot of new behavioural scientists feel like they need to be an expert in every framework, every bias, every model—but what really matters is knowing how to test ideas, how to run experiments, and how to adapt when things don’t work as expected. If you focus on that, you’ll go far.

---

With all your experience, what skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist? Are there any recommendations you would make?

If I had to boil it down, I’d say there are three main things: critical thinking, execution, and the ability to navigate an organization.

Critical thinking is everything. It’s about asking the right questions, not just coming up with answers. A big part of our job is helping businesses rethink problems—what are we actually trying to solve? Sometimes, people are focused on the wrong metric, or they’ve framed the problem in a way that limits solutions. So, having that ability to challenge assumptions and reframe things from a behavioural lens is crucial.

Then there’s execution. You can have all the great insights in the world, but if you can’t get things done, they don’t matter. A lot of behavioural scientists get stuck in the theory—they know all the biases, all the models, but they struggle to implement. The real skill is in making sure what we do actually happens—whether that’s running experiments, influencing decision-makers, or working with teams to implement changes at scale.

The third thing is navigating an organization. You can’t just sit behind your desk and come up with interventions. You need to be out there, talking to teams, figuring out where behavioural science fits. A lot of what we do isn’t about behavioural science itself—it’s about understanding business goals and then seeing how behavioural insights can support them. If you can’t speak the language of the business, you won’t be effective.

And if I had one big recommendation for people coming into the field? Learn how to work with non-behavioural scientists. Most of the time, you’ll be working with designers, marketers, finance teams—people who don’t think like us. You need to be able to translate what we do into something practical and useful for them. If you can’t do that, you won’t get buy-in, and nothing will move forward.

What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?

One of the biggest challenges I see is making sure we’re actually solving the right problems. Too often, behavioural science gets stuck in small-scale interventions—optimizing emails, tweaking messages—without looking at the bigger picture. We need to be thinking systemically, not just about isolated nudges. If we focus too much on quick wins and don’t embed ourselves in strategic decision-making, we risk being seen as a novelty rather than a necessity.

Another big challenge is proving long-term impact. A lot of behavioural interventions look great in an A/B test, but what happens a year down the line? Did we actually create lasting behaviour change, or just a temporary shift? Companies and governments are starting to ask tougher questions about whether behavioural science is delivering meaningful results over time. That means we need to get better at measuring impact beyond short-term metrics.

Then there’s the challenge of integration. A behavioural science team can’t exist in a silo—it needs to be embedded within organizations. If we’re always coming in as ‘external experts’ rather than part of the core business, we’ll struggle to make a real difference. The best behavioural science teams work alongside product teams, marketing, HR, cybersecurity—anywhere decisions are being made. But getting to that level of integration is hard, and a lot of teams haven’t figured it out yet.

And finally, there’s the issue of perception. I think there’s still a misunderstanding about what behavioural science actually is. Some people think it’s just about persuasion—getting people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. But it’s not about manipulation, it’s about understanding how people make decisions and designing better systems around that. We need to keep educating businesses, governments, and the public about what behavioural science really brings to the table. If we don’t, we risk being misunderstood or misused.

So, in short: We need to move beyond small tweaks and into strategic decisions. We need better long-term measurement. We need to be fully embedded in organizations. And we need to make sure people actually understand what we do. If we can tackle those challenges, I think the field has a strong future. If not, we risk fading into the background.

---

What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?

The lack of a unified framework. Right now, behavioural scientists must cobble together different models—some focused on nudging, others on decision processes, others on systemic interventions. This fragmentation makes it harder to train new people and harder to integrate into organizations effectively.

It also leads to unproductive debates—COM-B vs. EAST, for instance—when in reality, different models serve different purposes. We need a clearer, more practical structure.

How do you apply behavioural science to your own life, if at all?

Mostly in small, practical ways. For example, I use implementation intentions for eating healthier—I’ve set a simple rule: if I’m eating out on weekdays, I order fish and vegetables. No need for willpower; the decision is pre-made.

With my kids, I apply Carol Dweck’s growth mindset research. I’m careful about how I frame praise, avoiding fixed traits like “you’re so smart” and instead focusing on effort and learning.

---

If not a behavioural scientist, what else would you be?

I probably would’ve stayed in market research. I enjoyed it, but it didn’t challenge decision-making assumptions the way behavioural science does.

Alternatively, I might have gone into public policy. I find development economics fascinating, and my time working for an NGO in Chile left a lasting impression. Using behavioural insights for policy and social good is something I’d still love to explore.

Who else would you recommend me to interview?

A few names come to mind:

• Antoine Ferrere, Will Mailer, Matt Battersby—great perspectives on applying behavioural science in financial services.

• Zeina Afif—working on behavioural science in development at the World Bank, offering a different lens on the field.
  

These are people I turn to when I need to rethink problems, and I think they’d bring valuable insights to your interviews.

---

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Quique!

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!