Is Behavioural Science Becoming the Next Design Thinking?

The challenge of staying true to your roots while going mainstream.

Design thinking began as a rigorous, structured approach to innovation—rooted in problem-solving frameworks, human-centred design, and iterative prototyping. Today, it is often reduced to a corporate buzzword, invoked in workshops and strategy sessions with little resemblance to its original methodology. Is behavioural science heading down the same path?

Once an interdisciplinary field demanding expertise in psychology, research methods, and intervention design, behavioural science is now widely adopted across business, public policy, and beyond. This expanding influence is promising, yet it raises a critical question: as behavioural science becomes more accessible, is it at risk of losing its depth?

This is not an argument for exclusivity. It is, however, a call to ensure that behavioural science does not become a collection of catchy principles untethered from their empirical foundations.

The Design Thinking Effect: From Rigour to Buzzword

To see where behavioural science may be heading, it helps to examine the trajectory of design thinking. Once a structured methodology built on user research, prototyping, and iteration, it offered a clear framework for problem-solving, but as demand grew, the focus shifted from applying design thinking to promoting it.

Workshops multiplied. The core ideas—empathy, brainstorming, prototyping—were distilled into generic business wisdom. Design thinking became less a structured process and more a mindset—broad enough to fit almost any scenario, yet often lacking depth in execution.

A similar shift is happening in behavioural science. Its principles are being packaged into toolkits and training programmes, promising instant impact. While accessibility has benefits, simplification often comes at the cost of precision and effectiveness.

Is Behavioural Science Becoming Behavioural Buzzwords?

Several signs suggest that behavioural science is experiencing its own version of the “design thinking effect":

• Concepts are becoming detached from context. Nudging, friction reduction, and choice architecture are widely cited, yet often without consideration of when they work—or when they do not. A nudge that succeeds in one setting may fail in another​.

• One-size-fits-all applications are emerging. Behavioural insights are increasingly treated as universal solutions, rather than interventions tailored to specific behaviours in specific contexts. Research on intervention scalability suggests that many effects shrink—or disappear—outside their original environments​.

• The emphasis is shifting from evidence to accessibility. The appeal of quick wins has sometimes led to rigorous testing being deprioritised. While applied behavioural science must be practical, it should not trade empirical scrutiny for convenience​.

• “Behavioural science” is being used as a broad label. Just as “design thinking” came to mean anything vaguely creative, behavioural science is often invoked to describe approaches only loosely connected to its research-driven roots.

At its core, behavioural science is about understanding and influencing behaviour through evidence-based methods. If it is reduced to a checklist of biases and heuristics, its effectiveness will erode.

This is more than an academic concern. When behavioural interventions fail—whether in public policy, product design, or marketing—the failure is often blamed on behavioural science itself rather than its misapplication. If the discipline becomes diluted, its credibility will suffer.

How to Avoid the Design Thinking Trap

Behavioural science does not have to follow the same trajectory as design thinking. The challenge is not stopping its expansion, but ensuring that its growth does not come at the cost of rigour.

1. Keep behavioural science evidence-based: Behavioural insights should be grounded in robust research, not just compelling narratives. Applying behavioural science takes more than name-dropping famous studies; it requires a rigorous understanding of methodology, context, and unintended consequences. A good idea is not the same as an effective intervention. Without proper testing, behavioural science risks becoming a collection of plausible-sounding but ineffective tweaks​.

2. Recognise the limits of “off-the-shelf” solutions: Context matters, and what worked in one study or setting will not necessarily work elsewhere. Many behavioural science frameworks simplify complexity to make interventions more accessible, but the trade-off is that universal solutions rarely exist. Even well-evidenced interventions can flop spectacularly in the wrong context. The more we assume behavioural science works in general, rather than investigating whether it works in this case, the less impact it will have.

3. Differentiate between behavioural science as a profession and as a general skill: Using behavioural insights doesn’t make someone a behavioural scientist. Behavioural science is a broad field—some experts design interventions, others conduct research, analyse data, or advise on policy. These roles require different skills, and pretending otherwise is how we end up with half-baked applications and overhyped claims. Transparency matters - overselling impact fuels hype cycles, and when those interventions fail, so does the field’s credibility.

Final Thought

If behavioural science follows the path of design thinking, it risks becoming widely referenced but increasingly shallow. The more it drifts from rigour, the more it turns into just another business buzzword. When that happens, the failure won’t be in behavioural science itself, but in how it is applied.

Behavioural science is valuable because it works—but only when applied with rigour. When interventions fail due to misapplication or oversimplification, people don’t blame the flawed approach; they blame behavioural science itself. A field that prioritises popularity over precision loses trust, and once that happens, even well-designed interventions get dismissed.

Disciplines don’t lose credibility overnight—they fade, eroded by oversimplification and untested assumptions. Keeping behavioural science both practical and rigorous takes effort: accessible, not diluted; applicable, not oversold. Get that balance right, and behavioural science stays a powerful tool. Get it wrong, and it becomes just another corporate fad.