Interview with Sophie Attwood
- Merle van den Akker
- 19 hours ago
- 6 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 Sophie Attwood.
Sophie Attwood (PhD, CPsych) is a Cambridge University-trained behavioral scientist and founder and director of Behavior Global, a consultancy that helps companies, governments, and the third sector to use insights and methods from behavioral science to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing human health, wellbeing, and the future of our planet. Sophie has over 15 years of experience designing and evaluating behavior change programs in the health and sustainability sectors and her peer-reviewed research has been published in a range of high-impact academic journals such as the BMJ Open, Appetite and Frontiers. Her work has also featured in international media outlets including the Guardian, Washington Post, Forbes, Reuters, the National Geographic and more.
Who or what got you into behavioural science?
I was always interested in psychology and initially debated between studying journalism and psychology. I chose psychology because I saw it as a science with more practical applications. I was particularly drawn to health psychology, diet, and exercise, which led me to study nutrition and physical activity in public health for my master’s. I later did my PhD at the Centre for Diet and Activity Research, focusing on behavioural science in health-related contexts. During my PhD, I did some consultancy work and realised I enjoyed the speed and application of behavioural science outside academia. Cambridge was rigorous, but I craved a more creative approach. After my PhD, I worked in the private health sector, focusing on prevention and behavioural applications. This transition helped me understand how to apply research in real-world settings, balancing methodological rigour with practical decision-making. Five years ago, I joined the World Resources Institute to work on plant-based diets before it became mainstream. I had been vegetarian my whole life and found this work particularly meaningful. My career trajectory was unplanned, but I’ve remained within the behavioural science and health space, applying psychological principles to real-world challenges in nutrition, sustainability, and public health.
What is the accomplishment you are proudest of as a behavioural scientist? And what would you still like to achieve?
Completing my PhD was a major milestone—anyone who’s done one knows how difficult they are. Beyond that, I’m particularly proud of my work in plant-based diets. We were early to apply behavioural science to sustainable food choices, and I believe we played a role in shaping the conversation. We published studies that gained visibility, showing how nudges and interventions could encourage people to choose more sustainable diets. Seeing this research contribute to broader discussions and policy applications has been gratifying. While I wouldn’t say we were instrumental, it feels rewarding to be part of an evolving movement.
Looking forward, I see behavioural science expanding beyond diet and food waste to broader sustainable lifestyles. We need to rethink consumption-driven economies and redefine well-being beyond material goods. Behavioural science can play a crucial role in designing new societal norms, values, and habits that align with sustainable living. This shift won’t happen overnight, but applying behavioural insights to energy use, mobility, fashion, and consumer behaviour could have a lasting impact. I’d like to contribute to a more cohesive approach to sustainable living, ensuring behavioural science continues to drive meaningful, systemic change.
How do you think behavioural science will develop (in the next 10 years)?
AI is set to significantly impact behavioural science, particularly in research methodology. Traditionally, we spent time learning statistical models, regression analyses, and designing meticulous trials. Now, AI can quickly analyse data, reducing the need for extensive manual analysis. This shift means we may move away from decade-long studies and toward rapid, synthesised insights. We’re on the cusp of a transformation in research speed and efficiency.
AI-generated synthetic datasets could also change experimental design. Imagine running pilot studies with AI-generated participant pools before conducting real-world trials. This could optimise research efficiency and allow for broader scenario testing, including how interventions play out across different demographics and social contexts. However, we must establish methodologies that ensure reliability and ethical standards.
Another growing area is digital behaviour analysis. Online activity generates vast datasets with behavioural insights, which could be leveraged for policy, marketing, and public health. Integrating multiple data sources will be key. The field might shift away from traditional academic research toward a hybrid of consultancy, data analytics, and applied psychology. This evolution will require behavioural scientists to be adaptable, tech-savvy, and skilled at translating insights into action. While the changes may be disruptive, behavioural scientists are well-equipped to adapt—we study behaviour change, after all.
What are the greatest challenges being faced by behavioural science, right now?
A major challenge is maintaining methodological rigour while embracing new technology. AI and big data provide exciting opportunities, but they also introduce risks of bias, ethical concerns, and over-reliance on automation. If we’re not careful, we could lose the nuance that makes behavioural science effective.
Another challenge is real-world application. While companies value behavioural insights, they often struggle with execution. Many organisations lack the internal capability to translate insights into action, leading to resistance or misapplication. Behavioural scientists must bridge the gap between research and practice. Additionally, there’s a risk of behavioural science becoming diluted. Everyone and their dog claims to be a ‘behavioural scientist’ now, often without formal training in methodology. This can devalue the field and lead to poor-quality interventions. Ensuring proper education and expertise remains critical.
Another pressing issue is addressing systemic challenges like climate change, inequality, and misinformation. Behavioural science has tools to tackle these, but interventions must be large-scale and policy-driven, not just micro nudges.
Lastly, communication remains a challenge. Research is often inaccessible to the public and policymakers. We need to improve how we communicate findings, making them engaging and actionable for wider audiences.
What advice would you give to young behavioural scientists or those looking to progress into the field?
Master the methodology. You can learn subject-specific knowledge later, but understanding trial design, statistical models, and scientific rigour is what sets you apart. If you don’t have this grounding, you won’t be competitive in the job market. I’ve hired for multiple roles, and if a candidate lacks methodological training, their CV won’t make it through.
There’s a growing trend of hiring data scientists and upskilling them in behavioural science. If you’re just starting, having strong data skills—statistics, coding, analysis—will make you highly employable. That said, don’t lose sight of the human element. Data analysis alone isn’t enough; understanding human behaviour, context, and real-world application is key.
Finally, learn to communicate effectively. Writing and presenting your work clearly and engagingly will make you more valuable. Behavioural science isn’t just about analysis—it’s about translating insights into action.
What skills would you say are needed to be a behavioural scientist?
Trial design, statistical analysis, and understanding the scientific method are crucial. Being numerically literate is non-negotiable. Beyond that, communication skills are critical—you need to translate data into actionable insights. The ability to synthesise information quickly and critically is also important. With AI taking over some of the heavy lifting in analysis, human expertise will lie in interpreting and applying insights.
What is your biggest frustration with the field as it stands?
There’s a lot of replication without innovation. We don’t need another minor variation of a social norms study; we need fresh ideas and new methodologies. More risk-taking in research would be refreshing. Too often, research is hyper-focused on small, incremental replications rather than exploring new frontiers or applying behavioural science in innovative ways. It would be valuable to see more interdisciplinary collaboration and novel applications of existing theories rather than slight modifications of well-known frameworks. Additionally, there is a tendency for researchers to be overly cautious, publishing only rigorously validated results rather than sharing exploratory findings that could spark new discussions. This culture of extreme scrutiny can stifle creativity. The publication system also plays a role in slowing down progress, as journals tend to favour safe, traditional studies over high-risk, high-reward research. If we want behavioural science to remain relevant and impactful, we need to encourage more creativity, risk-taking, and interdisciplinary integration in both research and practice.
How do you apply behavioural to your own life, if at all?
I automate decision-making. For example, if I reach a bus stop and a bus isn’t there within a set time, I default to walking. Structuring decisions this way reduces unnecessary deliberation. I also modify my environment—keeping unhealthy food out of the house and creating default choices that align with my goals.
If not a behavioural scientist, what else would you be?
I considered journalism but wasn’t sure a degree was necessary. I also loved geography, biology, and international development, so I might have pursued human geography or sociology. Nutrition was another strong contender, particularly the mind-body connection.
Who else would you recommend me to interview?
Check out Jay Ananda at Deakin University and Mark Boulet, who does great work on food waste in Australia. Courtney Price at FAO is also worth speaking to—he works in a big organization applying behavioural science in practice. These are all people with interesting insights into sustainability and consumer behaviour.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions Sophie!
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!
