We had a lively debate and discussion during the event. Thank you to all those who were able to attend live. If you weren't able to make it, you can view the recording here. (The link is the same as the registration link. After you register/login, you’ll be taken to the video.)

* * *

What do you think?

What are your perspectives on the debate? Has the i-frame vs. s-frame debate influenced your work? Where do you agree, and where do you disagree? What related questions are you grappling with? Where do you think the applied behavioral science goes next? 

Share your perspective via our  “letter to the editor” form. 

* * *

Five questions to consider

In advance of the event, I asked each of our five guests to prepare a question for the group. We didn't get to all of them during the discussion, so I thought it might be valuable to share them with everyone. The questions can serve as leaping off points to advance your own thinking and for your discussions with colleagues. 

Here they are:

1. Systems-level change (from Nick): How can behavioral science most effectively help with system-level (s-frame) change?

2. Inadvertent harm of the i-frame vs. s-frame argument (from Michael): From where you sit, do you think the i-frame vs. s-frame argument could inadvertently diminish interest in applying behavioral science to public policy?

3. Equity (from Crystal): How does an equity focus complicate (or settle?) the i-frame/s-frame question?

4. The case of gambling (from George): Considerable research suggests that online gambling is causing extensive harm, particularly to poor and young people. How can behavioral insights inform interventions at both the individual level and the system level? And which level do you expect to be more effective?

5. The next generation of behavioral scientists (from Chiara): How does this debate translate into action, such as the training and mentoring of the next generation of behavioral scientists?

The post View the I-Frame vs. S-Frame Roundtable Discussion appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Applied behavioral scientists believe their work can influence people’s lives for the better. But what is the most effective way to make that happen? 

Is it through interventions focused on influencing individual behavior while maintaining freedom of choice? Is it by changing policies and laws, and thereby the systems, that individuals operate within? Is it a combination of the two? Is the distinction between an individual- or systems-focus a helpful one? Or, is the world too messy and complex? How should applied behavioral scientists navigate the financial and political influences on the work they’re asked to do, as well as the work they’d like to do? 

These are all questions that applied behavioral scientists are grappling with as they try to realize the promise of the field—to leverage the scientific understanding of psychology, behavior, society, and culture to help one another live happier, healthier, and more peaceful lives. 

On October 14, join Editor-in-Chief Evan Nesterak and five leading behavioral scientists—Nick Chater, George Loewestein, Crystal Hall, Michael Hallsworth, and Chiara Varazzani—for a roundtable discussion about these questions and more. The leaping off point will be the i-frame vs. s-frame debate initiated by Chater and Loewenstein, first in an academic article and now in their new book, It’s on You. (Further background on the debate below.)

The guests of the roundtable don’t all agree on how to answer the questions above. In fact, in many cases they sharply disagree. But they all have extensive experience working in both academic and applied settings, especially in public policy, so we have the opportunity for an interesting and constructive conversation. The goal isn’t to settle the debate but to explore areas of agreement and disagreement, open a dialogue about how applied behavioral scientists approach their work, and surface the questions that can move the debate forward.

The event will take place online and is free to attend. You can reserve your spot here.

• Date: Wednesday, October 14
• Start time: 9:00am San Francisco | 12:00pm New York | 5:00pm London | 6:00pm Berlin | 7:00pm Nairobi | 9:30pm Delhi
• Duration: 90 minutes
• Location: Online
• Cost: Free to attend
• Register: Reserve your spot

A recording will be made available to all registrants after the event, in case you're not able to attend live.

We hope to see you there,

Evan Nesterak, Editor-in-Chief

Background on the debate

In their 2022 article in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, psychologist Nick Chater and behavioral economist George Loewestein ignited the i-frame vs. s-frame debate within applied behavioral science. The two argued that, in the decade since the field burst on the scene, applied behavioral scientists, themselves included, had focused too much on trying to influence individual behavior (i-frame) and not enough on trying to influence the systems in which individuals behave (s-frame).

The result, they said, especially as it related to public policy, was that interventions were coming up short, attention was being directed away from system-level solutions that could have a tangible impact, and, perhaps most seriously, that applied behavioral scientists “may have unwittingly promoted the interests of the opponents of systemic change.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not everyone agreed. One focus of Chater and Loewenstein’s criticism was nudging, which for them epitomized the i-frame approach. The format of the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences is to feature a target article (in this case Chater and Loewestein’s) and then invite other scholars to respond to that article. Both Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, authors of Nudge, issued a response. “Nudging is being framed,” Thaler wrote. Sunstein argued, “Their complaint is baseless. In the real world of policymaking, behavioral science is mostly being used to reform systems, not to alter individual behavior.” 

And Michael Hallsworth, a leader of the Behavioural Insights Team, wrote: 

“I greatly respect the authors of the target article. However, in contrast to the target article's assertion, practitioners of behavioral public policy are indeed involved in developing and promoting systemic solutions. Its ‘i-frame’/‘s-frame’ distinction is incoherent, unhelpful, and obscures promising future directions for behavioral public policy. Its content and presentation undermine its stated goals and encourage sweeping dismissals of the field.”

Chater, Loewenstein, Thaler, Sunstein, and Hallsworth all believe that applied behavioral science can be a positive force in improving people’s lives. The question is: How does the field get there? 

Earlier this year, Chater and Loewenstein expanded their argument about the i-frame and s-frame in their book, It’s on You. And the question of how applied behavioral scientists should approach their work continues to bubble up in commentaries and conversations.

We wanted to use this moment to bring together diverging viewpoints about the i-frame vs. s-frame debate and how the field fulfills its promise. At the roundtable discussion, in addition to Nick Chater and George Loewestein, we’ll be joined by Crystal Hall (Professor, University of Washington and President, Behavioral Science & Policy Association), Michael Hallsworth (Chief Behavioral Scientist, BIT), and Chiara Varazzani (Lead Behavioral Scientist, OECD).

About the roundtable guests

Nick Chater is a professor of behavioral science at the Warwick Business School. In 2023, he was awarded the Rumelhart Prize for lifetime achievement in cognitive science. He has advised the UK Government and co-founded Decision Technology, a research consultancy. He is the coauthor of It’s on You (with George Loewenstein).

George Loewenstein is the Herbert A. Simon University Professor of Economics and Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. He is one of the founders of behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and behavioral public policy and has advised many leading companies and government bodies. He is the coauthor of It’s on You (with Nick Chater).

Crystal Hall is the John and Marguerite Walker Corbally Endowed Professor in Public Service at the University of Washington, as well as the president of the Behavioral Science & Policy Association. She has served as a fellow with the White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team and the Federal Office of Evaluation Sciences at the General Services Administration, and has advised government agencies, nonprofits, and community organizations. She is the coauthor of Antiracist by Design (with Mindy Hernandez).

Michael Hallsworth is the chief behavioral scientist at BIT. He has two decades of experience in developing policy and designing services for national governments and international organizations. He is also a distinguished lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, and was previously visiting lecturer at Princeton University and assistant professor (adjunct) at Columbia University. He is the author of The Hypocrisy Trap and coauthor of Behavioral Insights (with Elspeth Kirkman).

Chiara Varazzani is lead behavioral scientist at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). She is also a senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Previously, she served as a member of the Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights for the World Health Organization (WHO), advised the Australian government, and was an adjunct research fellow at Monash University.

The post Frontiers: A Roundtable Discussion on the I-Frame vs. S-Frame Debate appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Loading the mail truck before the day begins, dealing with aggressive dogs and bad weather, and keeping a neighborhood connected by showing up every day with John Ayala, a retired mail carrier in Los Angeles. How did a golf club help him deliver packages? And what does a mail carrier learn about us from our mail?

[buzzsprout episode='19556309' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Mail Carrier” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured John Ayala. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…a Mail Carrier appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Digging line to redirect the country's fiercest wildland fires, sleeping in the dirt after a 16-hour day, and turning physical endurance into a public service with Ben Strahan, a hotshot crew superintendent in California. What does a wildfire sound like up close? And where does a crew go when the fire threatens to overrun them?

[buzzsprout episode='19534994' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Hotshot” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured Ben Strahan. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…a Hotshot appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

The year was 1948. Only three years had passed since the Axis powers signed the instrument of surrender effectively ending the Second World War. Fifty nations had taken part in the conflict that saw genocide and the first use of nuclear weapons. An estimated 50 million lives were lost and another 19–28 million died in the aftermath from disease and famine.

Borders had been redrawn across Europe. The Nuremberg trials had concluded on the international stage but were still underway in U.S. military courts. The United Nations was still in its infancy. Expansions to the Geneva Convention to protect civilians during war were still a year away. The Cold War loomed on the horizon.

It was in this year that social psychologist Muzafer Sherif began sketching out his vision for an experiment that he hoped would get at the heart of intergroup conflict and demonstrate the means to resolve it. In a letter to his former Ph.D. advisor, Gardner Murphy, he laid out his idea: two groups of boys set in competition with one another while attending a summer camp. Using standard camp activities, Sherif would manufacture conflict between the groups and then set about uncovering the best means of restoring peace. The project would prove to be a landmark in psychology that continues to influence the field some 70 years later.

After two major world wars in the first half of the twentieth century, psychologists began asking themselves what they could offer to help stave off a third global encounter. After receiving an influx of European scientists who had experienced fascism firsthand, the field of social psychology in the United States in particular was primed to lead this new focus of research.

Muzafer Sherif was a Turkish émigré who found himself searching for a home in the immediate postwar years. He held master’s degrees from Istanbul University and Harvard University, and earned his Ph.D. in social psychology from Columbia University in 1935. After returning to Turkey following his doctoral studies, Sherif began to speak out against a growing fascist regime, lending his support to the Communist Party of Turkey. His support of communism led to his arrest, albeit briefly; he escaped longer imprisonment thanks only to his brother’s political connections and by agreeing to leave Turkey. This arrangement meant that in 1945, Sherif returned to the United States. After breaking Turkey’s law forbidding civil servants (including professors) from marrying a foreigner, by wedding an American woman, fellow psychologist Carolyn Wood Sherif, any thought of one day returning to his home country was permanently rescinded.

And so as the world grappled with the aftermath of global conflict, Muzafer Sherif searched for a new home in a country where he did not hold citizenship and where his political views would eventually draw the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Although initially successful in finding a fellowship at Princeton University, Muzafer spent the better part of two years searching for opportunities for himself and for Carolyn, a search made all the more urgent by the arrival of the first of their three daughters. During the process, he was told that universities weren’t in the process of giving aid to foreign researchers. Eventually, with the help of colleagues, Sherif managed to secure a Rockefeller Research Fellowship at Yale University.

It was this fellowship that allowed him to pursue his vision of an experiment that he hoped could act as a microcosm for global relations. Working collaboratively with Carolyn, he led his colleagues (including Marvin B. Sussman, Robert Huntington, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, and William R. Hood) through a series of three camp studies between 1949 and 1954.

These camps saw 11- and 12-year-old boys establish tight-knit groups with self-appointed team names like the “Red Devils,” “Pythons,” and “Rattlers” enter into rivalries that descended into name calling, the destruction of the opposing group’s cabin, and even physical fights. Viewing the young campers as mirrors for larger global unrest, Sherif and his colleagues believed the camps offered the chance to understand conflict and, more importantly, develop and test ideas to help unravel it. The challenge became how to put the vision into action.

The Camps:

• 1949 Happy Valley Camp, Winsted, CT — Red Devils and Bulldogs
• 1953 Camp Talualac, Middle Grove, NY — Panthers and Pythons
• 1954 Camp Tom Hale, Robbers Cave State Park, Wilburton, OK — Eagles and Rattlers

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 2: Call to Adventure

Heavy blankets, pajamas, shorts, swim trunks, underwear, a softball glove—the items listed on the bulletin sent to campers sound like what might appear on any standard camp packing list. Parents were reminded to label everything they sent with their son and urged not to overpack. As a teaser, campers were told activities would include swimming, hiking, and overnight camping. For all intents and purposes, a typical summer camp.

The boys selected for each camp came from remarkably similar backgrounds: they were Protestant, white, from middle-class two-parent homes, average students, healthy, and well-adjusted. Most were 11 or 12 years old, and most had previous camp experience. This similarity was deliberate. Sherif wanted to control as many variables as he could in order to isolate the effects of the experiment; in some cases, his research team painstakingly interviewed the parents and teachers of potential campers and reviewed their school and medical records.

A key part of Sherif’s experiment involved observing the boys covertly. To pull off the ruse, the research team played the role of camp staff working alongside junior camp counselors. The researchers were told to avoid clothing with identifiable insignia that might reveal their relationship to the university and to record their observations privately, without conferring with other observers. All staff were instructed to not show any preference when the boys were discussing plans or solving problems. For his own role, Sherif chose to play the camp caretaker, alias Mr. Mussey, as a way to minimize the impact of his Turkish accent while still allowing him to remain close to the activity.

As they boarded the buses, the boys had no indication that their camp was a highly choreographed field study that would soon pit them against one another.

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 3: Road of Trials

The general design of all three camps was roughly the same: first, the boys were divided into two groups. In the first two camps, these groups were selected after the boys had formed friendships in order to purposefully split up friend groups, whereas in the third camp, the groups were preselected and the boys were initially unaware there was another group of campers. Through a series of team building activities—hikes, cookouts, overnight campouts, swimming—the groups bonded, spontaneously formed their own leadership structures, and created their own group culture.

The research team tried to stoke the rivalry between the two groups through a series of tournament style events, including baseball, tug-of-war, touch football, tent pitching, skits, songs, and cabin inspection; pocket knives were offered as prizes for the tournament winners.

The tournament succeeded in creating friction between the groups, friction which increased as the contest progressed. The boys began to trade taunts and insults; they also planned raids on the opposing cabin, turning over bunks and dumping personal possessions on the floor. In 1954, the Eagles stole and burned the flag of their rivals, the Rattlers; in retaliation the Rattlers stole a pair of jeans from the Eagles’ appointed leader and painted them with the words “The Last of the Eagles” in bright orange paint and then carried the jeans as a flag.

With animosity and overt aggression growing between the groups, the researchers turned their focus to the core of the experiment: bringing the groups back into a state of harmony. Sherif believed that resolving the conflict at the camps would provide valuable insight into the social and psychological process for how to secure peace between warring nations. The success of his vision hinged on this final stage—but resolving conflict would prove difficult to achieve.

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 4: Discoveries

For Sherif and his colleagues, having the boys develop an affinity for the members of their assigned group and then generating conflict between the groups was relatively straightforward. The conflict formed as planned at the first and third camps; at the second camp, the boys discovered the experimental setup as the conflict was building, so Sherif cut the study short. In the end, resolving the animosity between the groups was achieved in only the last of the three camps.

Initially, the researchers arranged a series of scenarios in which the rival groups were increasingly in contact—sharing the mess hall during meal time, attending a movie together. Not only did mere exposure to one another fail to relieve the tension, in some circumstances it exacerbated the name calling and arguments between the groups. At the first camp, researchers also challenged the groups to band together to compete against an external softball team, but even this “common enemy” was only temporarily successful in creating peace between the two groups, and created new conflict aimed at a third group.

It wasn’t until the researchers introduced at the 1954 camp a series of tasks with superordinate goals—problems that cannot be ignored but can only be resolved if the groups work together—that harmony rose. At that final camp, researchers arranged for the drinking water to fail, requiring the groups to team up to locate the problem with the water system. The boys shared tools and worked together across group lines, but the animosity returned when they later sat for a meal together. Researchers continued to introduce similar superordinate goals. For example, the two groups had to band together to pull-start a stalled truck that contained their meals. They were also challenged to come up with a solution that would allow them to see a movie after it was announced the camp did not have enough funds to cover the movie fee. After coming together to bring water, food, and even a movie to the camp, the lines that had been drawn between groups began to fade.

With the final of the three camps concluded and most of the boys making friends within the opposing group, Sherif and his colleagues believed they had achieved success. But would figuring out how to reduce conflict at a summer camp have an impact in the wider world?

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 5: Mastering Two Worlds

“The world leaders should heed the lesson of the experiment.” Muzafer Sherif did not mince words when he shared a summary of the camp studies with the public in 1969 within the pages of The Washington Post. But this was 15 years after the final camp, and it was one of only a small handful of articles authored by Sherif in the popular press.

When he did speak of the camps, Sherif merged the three in his summaries and focused primarily on the 1954 results—the only camp in which they reached the final stage and conflict was resolved. He also made clear how he interpreted the actions of the boys: the vandalism of the cabin of the opposing group was a “raid” while the collection of apples was the “stockpiling of ammunition.” From Sherif’s perspective, these were not merely summer camps but also a mirror for the rising tensions between nations.

The camp studies, or the 1954 camp to be exact, became the best-known demonstration of realistic group conflict theory—a model of intergroup conflict in social psychology. It may be the novelty of the approach alone that resulted in the popularity of the experiment; Sherif and his colleagues were not particularly active advocates. Aside from a handful of academic articles and presentations, the team only published the results of the 1954 Robbers Cave study initially as a technical report that was distributed privately to colleagues. The full book version was not published until 1961, and then with a small publisher at the University of Oklahoma. The study results would not see larger distribution until the text was republished in 1988.

In classic researcher style, Sherif took less interest in communicating the meaning of his research for the real-world to others and instead focused his time expanding on the lessons learned within the camp studies, investigating intergroup conflict—and group dynamics more generally—in new settings with expanded participant pools.

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 6: Reflections

Summer camp was not the final scene of Muzafer and Carolyn Wood Sherif’s research into group behavior. They brought their observational work to other settings, diversifying their participant groups in terms of age, gender, and race. While intergroup conflict remained core to their collaborative work program, the Sherifs expanded their focus to include other elements of a group’s dynamics, like conformity to and deviation from group norms, and the hierarchy of relationships among members.

In 1966, the Sherifs moved from Oklahoma, where they had been since 1949, to Pennsylvania State University. Muzafer took his interdisciplinary methods into the sociology department, while Carolyn increasingly shifted her research toward the psychology of gender, becoming a founding member of the Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35 of the American Psychological Association).

Throughout their careers, Muzafer and Carolyn wrote extensively about their research on groups, jointly publishing nine books in addition to their own respective works. But their names would become inextricably entwined with the 1954 Robbers Cave camp, their larger research program overshadowed. And as psychologists have looked back on psychology’s classic studies, the Sherifs’ legacy has found itself at the center of renewed controversy.

Click on image to view

* * *

Part 7: Re-visions

Similar to other well-known social psychology studies of the mid–twentieth century—such as Stanley Milgram’s “shock box” obedience experiments—Sherif conceived the camp studies as a direct response to the Second World War and other global conflicts. Social psychologists of the postwar era struggled to make sense of the horrors of the Holocaust by researching human conformity, obedience to authority, and intergroup relations.

Today, the camp studies are remembered as classic examples of the field study method, as well as for their overarching examination of intergroup relations. Echoing how the results were published, people generally focus on the 1954 camp at Robbers Cave State Park, and mention the 1949 and 1953 camps in passing, if at all. Those reporting on the studies typically assign Muzafer Sherif (and occasionally Carolyn Wood Sherif) sole credit, overlooking his many collaborators across the three camps.

But in more recent years, serious questions have been raised about the ethics of these postwar researchers, particularly their collective decision to conceal from participants the true purpose of their research. Contemporary reviews of the camp studies regularly invoke William Golding’s book Lord of the Flies (coincidentally published the same year as the Robbers Cave camp), although unlike in the book, the conflict between groups was artificially and purposefully created by Sherif and his team, rather than having emerged naturally. Central to the criticism are questions of the transparency of the original research reports.

Gina Perry’s 2018 book The Lost Boys has perhaps ignited the heaviest round of concern as she revealed in a series of interviews with former campers that not only were they unaware that their camp days had been part of psychological research but also that several of the boys attributed some enduring discomfort to the memories of the experience. Deceiving the boys about the true nature of their camp had never been secret; Sherif and his colleagues believed it was essential that the boys be unaware that the camp was anything but a regular summer camp. This point was emphasized in planning documents, instructions to observers and camp counselors, and in communications with parents. But the boys were never debriefed, instead learning of the deception when Perry approached them for interviews, just over half a century later.

For their part, parents knew from the beginning that they were sending their children to an atypical summer camp. Consent forms, informational letters, and in-person information sessions explained that the camp was being run for the purposes of research. The true purpose of that research and what the study would entail were less clear. Researchers told parents that the camp would provide a “wholesome cooperative living experience” that would “prepare the youngsters for better citizenship and to be leaders in their communities.” There was never mention of purposefully engineering conflict with other campers, nor the overarching search for a solution to global conflict.

Perhaps more striking among concerns of the transparency surrounding the camp studies is that a careful reading of Sherif’s original footnotes by Frances Cherry in 1995 re-exposed why the second camp in 1953 had been called off. In his own writing, Sherif initially acknowledged that the study had been cut short after the boys discovered the experimental ruse. In later accounts, Sherif changed how he framed the 1953 study, citing “unfavorable conditions” and “errors in judgment” on the part of the researchers for its early conclusion, and obscuring that the cleverness of his young subjects was the real reason why the two groups of campers never completed the conflict stage.

Critics have also raised additional questions concerning the way the researchers merged results of the three studies. Psychology students have often been introduced to the studies through confident statements about the dynamics of group formation, intergroup conflict, and how working toward a common goal can bring peaceful resolution—but these are the results only of the 1954 Robbers Cave camp. In 1949, the groups failed to resolve their conflict; in 1953, the study was cut short. Much like in the real world, conflict in an experiment proved to be complex, an important nuance that receives little attention amid the work’s greater legacy.

In spite of the criticisms, it cannot be said that Sherif shied away from trying to put his work to use for a greater good. With the outbreak of the Korean and Vietnam wars on the heels of the Second World War and the growing threat of the Cold War, the Sherifs’ work was a direct attempt to resolve the problems consuming the world. Carolyn herself reflected that it should be no surprise that a Turkish psychologist who witnessed the atrocities of war firsthand as the Ottoman Empire fell in his youth only to find himself exiled from his homeland after marrying an American should come to study global conflict.

In his notes and publications, Muzafer was cautious to never lay blame on individuals for global hostilities, instead focusing on groups—nations, governments—that he spent his career seeking to understand through the observation of group dynamics among children and adolescents. To pave the path to harmony, he called for a world organization with the power to hold even the strongest nations accountable. Today, the question remains as to whether a new generation of social scientists will take up the optimism and ambition of the Sherifs’ vision and bring new solutions to the world stage.

Click on image to view

The author thanks Lizette Royer Barton and Heather Graci for their research assistance.

Select References

• Muzafer and Carolyn Wood Sherif papers. Drs. Nicholas and Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron, Akron, OH.
• Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
• Perry, G. (2018). The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment. Victoria, Australia: Scribe.
• Cherry, F. E. (1995). The ‘stubborn particulars’ of social psychology: Essays on the research process. New York, NY: Routledge.

The post Journey to Robbers Cave appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Pitching airline executives during route-planning speed dates, opening a $1.7 billion new terminal, and making space for emotional airport reunions with Christina Cassotis, CEO of Pittsburgh International Airport. Why does she have a beekeeper on contract? And what did a missing freight elevator teach her about leadership?

[buzzsprout episode='19294751' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Airport CEO” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured Christina Cassotis. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…an Airport CEO appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Designing runways for hot air and heavy planes, inspecting pavement cracks with measuring wheels, and protecting vicious little owls from construction crews with Eileen Vélez-Vega, a civil aviation engineer in Puerto Rico. What does the color of runway lights reveal to a pilot? And what's a “spall”?

[buzzsprout episode='19322848' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Civil Aviation Engineer” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured Eileen Vélez-Vega. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…a Civil Aviation Engineer appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

For your intellectual travels this summer, we’ve curated a baker’s dozen of behavioral science books newly published this year. Explore the mysteries of life and consciousness, glimpse the power of constraints and the games that define our lives, navigate life’s cliffs, and find the places that will make you who you are.

— Heather Graci, Editor and Evan Nesterak, Editor-in-Chief

Exploring life, death, and consciousness

“Life begins, with a spark of sentience catalyzed by chemistry and chance, and then it ends, with death,” writes Maria Popova. “The great mystery is not the fable of what lies beyond. The great mystery is what we make of the wilderness between the bookends…”

These two books are a foray into that wilderness. Popova weaves together the tales of people who have attempted to answer questions of life, death, and personhood the best way they knew how—some by discovering the structure of penicillin or tracing the path of Venus, others by writing poetry, and still others by sailing across the ocean. 

Michael Pollan confronts the “improbable fact—the miracle!—that in this universe of rock and fire and ice and infinite space, we are somehow not only here but aware.” How are we conscious? Why are we conscious? And where else does consciousness exist?

Popova and Pollan will make you feel at once bigger and smaller—bigger for having grappled with questions that have endured for millenia, and smaller for realizing the limits of what we might ever hope to answer.

Traversal
By Maria Popova

From the back cover: “What is life? What is death? What makes a body a person? What makes a planet a world? In Traversal, Maria Popova illuminates our various instruments of reckoning with the bewilderment of being alive—our telescopes and our treatises, our postulates and our poems—through the intertwined lives, loves, and legacies of visionaries both celebrated and sidelined by history, people born into the margins of their time and place who lived to write the future.”

A World Appears: A Journey Into Consciousness
By Michael Pollan

From the back cover: “When it comes to the phenomenon that is consciousness, there is one point on which scientists, philosophers, and artists all agree: that it feels like something to be us. Yet the fact we have subjective experience of the world remains one of nature’s greatest mysteries. How is it that our mental operations are accompanied by feelings, thoughts, and a sense of self? What would a scientific investigation of our inner life look like, considering we have as little distance and perspective on it as fish do of the sea?”

* * *

A journalist, a philosopher, and a cognitive scientist think about thinking

What makes some constraints stifling and others catalysts for discovery? Why is scoring points energizing in games but soul-deadening in life and work? Where can we use math to model human intelligence, and where does it fall short?

Three new books offer a chance to think deeper about your own thinking. Journalist David Epstein reveals how constraints can propel our thinking. Philosopher C. Thi Nguyen uncovers the games that exist beneath the surface of society; games you’re playing whether you know it or not. Cognitive scientist Tom Griffiths explains how understanding the aspects of human thinking that are likely to remain elusive to AI can change the way we see ourselves and help us appreciate the cognitive mysteries that set us apart.

Inside the Box: How Constraints Make Us Better
By David Epstein

From the back cover: “We live in a world that gives us seemingly infinite choices and prizes freedom above all else. We have an unprecedented number of options regarding what to do, who to be, and how to spend our time. All that choice is wonderful; it is also overwhelming. The irony is that total freedom can be paralyzing, and unlimited resources don’t necessarily lead to the biggest breakthroughs. In fact, overvaluing complete freedom can be disastrous for everything from starting a company to harnessing creativity to finding personal satisfaction. David Epstein argues that all of us—individuals, businesses, institutions, even societies—can benefit from narrowing our options.”

The Score: How to Stop Playing Somebody Else's Game
By C. Thi Nguyen

From the back cover: “Games are the most important art form of our era. They embody the spirit of free play. They show us the subtle beauty of action everywhere in life in video games, sports, and boardgames—but also cooking, gardening, fly-fishing, and running. They remind us that it isn’t always about outcomes, but about how glorious it feels to be doing the thing. And the scoring systems help get us there, by giving us new goals to try on. Scoring systems are also at the center of our corporations and bureaucracies—in the form of metrics and rankings. They tell us exactly how to measure our success. They encourage us to outsource our values to an external authority. And they push on us to value simple, countable things. Metrics don’t capture what really matters; they only capture what’s easy to measure. The price of that clarity is our independence.”

The Laws of Thought: The Quest for a Mathematical Theory of the Mind
By Tom Griffiths

From the back cover: “Everyone has a basic understanding of how the physical world works. We learn about physics and chemistry in school, letting us explain the world around us in terms of concepts like force, acceleration, and gravity—the Laws of Nature. But we don’t have the same fluency with concepts needed to understand the world inside us—the Laws of Thought. While the story of how mathematics has been used to reveal the mysteries of the universe is familiar, the story of how it has been used to study the mind is not.”

* * *

Bringing data to a gunfight

Economists Alvin Roth and Jennifer Doleac share the conviction that using a data-driven approach to answer moral questions is itself a matter of morality. 

In Moral Economics, Nobel-winner Roth shows how conceptualizing divisive social issues like drugs, abortion, and organ donation as markets can expose new ways to make progress in contexts where both sides refuse to compromise. And in The Science of Second Chances, Jennifer Doleac illuminates how many criminal justice policies—no matter how well-meaning—are far from just. But she also shows that where our intuition fails, science can succeed in helping us build a system that leaves everyone better off.

In Doleac’s words: “I see a lack of rigor as unethical. Policies that don’t work don’t help people. If we are serious about improving lives, we need to test our policies carefully to ensure they’re effective.”

Moral Economics: From Prostitution to Organ Sales, What Controversial Transactions Reveal About How Markets Work
By Alvin E. Roth

From the back cover: “Some of the most intractable controversies in our divided society are, at bottom, about what actions and transactions should be banned. . . . Disagreements are fierce because arguments on both sides are often made in uncompromising moral or religious terms. But in Moral Economics, Nobel Prize–winning economist Alvin E. Roth asserts that we can make progress on these and other difficult topics if we view them as markets—tools to help decide who gets what—and understand how those markets can be fine-tuned to be more functional. Markets don’t have to allow everything or ban everything. Prudent market design can find a balance between preserving people’s rights to pursue their own interests and protecting the most vulnerable from harm.”

The Science of Second Chances: A Revolution in Criminal Justice
By Jennifer Doleac

From the back cover: “When criminal justice expert Jennifer Doleac thinks about reform, she’s not just hopeful, she’s optimistic that second chances are possible—for the justice-involved population and the system as a whole. In The Science of Second Chances, she reveals her powerful approach to reducing crime and incarceration. Drawing on cutting-edge economic research and real-world experiments, the book presents a blueprint for reform that runs all the way through the system . . . From DNA databases that increase the likelihood of catching reoffenders to leniency programs for first-time defendants, she reveals a series of surprising interventions that actually work, along with cautionary tales about great ideas that never panned out.”

Read an excerpt from The Science of Second Chances in Behavioral Scientist: “It’s as if they’re standing at a fork in the road, considering what to do next. One direction leads toward more criminal behavior and criminal justice involvement, and the other leads toward a productive, law-abiding life. It turns out that many first-time defendants will choose the better path if we simply get out of their way.”

Three social psychologists on being social

The season of barbecues and beach vacations is upon us. That means spending more time with people—some you might know and love, some you might not know and love yet, and some, well, let’s just say it’s complicated. 

Three social psychologists offer insights into our relationships with others. Nicholas Epley illuminates why fundamentally social creatures like us so often choose to keep to ourselves and offers advice for how to overcome the misplaced pessimism that keeps us from saying, “Hello.” Gillian Sandstrom recounts the science behind talking to strangers and shares how her own life grew brighter and richer when she did. And finally, Julia Minson confronts one of the scenarios that keep many of us away from others—disagreement—and shows why we don’t need to feel so daunted by the possibility that we might not see eye to eye with someone.

A Little More Social: How Small Choices Create Unexpected Happiness, Health, and Connection
By Nicholas Epley

From the back cover: “There is a paradox at the core of human life. We are a highly social species uniquely equipped to connect with other people and doing so is better for us. Yet we so often choose to be unsocial. We avoid talking to the stranger who sits next to us. We struggle to move beyond small talk with an acquaintance. We are reluctant to express our gratitude to people we appreciate. Every day, we avoid opportunities to connect with strangers, neighbors, colleagues, friends, and family. By missing those moments, we miss out on all the benefits of a more social life—one that is happier and healthier for everyone.”

Once Upon a Stranger: The Science of How “Small” Talk Can Add Up to a Big Life
By Gillian Sandstrom

From the back cover: “Dr. Gillian Sandstrom reveals that by talking to strangers, we can unlock more joy, curiosity, and goodwill every day. In an age when loneliness is a social health crisis and harmful behaviors like groupthink increase our perception of distance and polarization, this transformational guide explains the benefits of stretching our perceived limits and connecting with our fellow humans.”

How to Disagree Better
By Julia Minson

From the back cover: “We are in a disagreement crisis. The average person would rather go to the dentist than have a twenty-minute conversation with someone that they strongly disagree with. Yet disagreement is both inevitable and essential for everything from navigating decisions at home to running innovative and agile companies to governing democratic societies.”

* * *

The places that make you who you are

Summer is a time when we’re on the move—to places we’ve never been and to places we’ve been again and again. Engineer and behavioral scientist Leidy Klotz asks: How do places shape us? And how can we shape the places that shape us?

In a Good Place: How the Spaces Where We Live, Work, and Play Can Help Us Thrive
By Leidy Klotz

From the back cover: “So many books address how to live a good life. This one is about where. Immersing readers in locations from beach huts to modern office layouts, from the backyard where we once played to the college dorm where we forged lifelong bonds, behavioral scientist Leidy Klotz illuminates how our physical environment determines our habits, our relationships, and even who we are.”

* * *

Navigating life’s cliffs

How should we understand the experiences that change the trajectory of our lives—the end of a career, an unthinkable diagnosis, love found, or love lost? Who are we before these great upheavals, and who do we become afterward?

Author Jim Collins calls these experiences “cliffs,” which require people to “reconstitute their lives and reenvision the years to come.” He spent 10 years identifying pairs of people throughout history who faced similar cliffs and considering how their paths diverged, or didn’t, in their aftermath. 

Cognitive scientist Maya Shankar explores change in a different way. After years of conversations with people who have confronted a major change in their life, she brings together their stories to show how people rebuild their lives on “the other side of change.” 

“The odds any of us will complete a life without cliffs are close to zero. Some cliffs are bigger than others, but life is punctuated by cliffs,” writes Collins. “Cliffs are us.”

What to Make of a Life: Cliffs, Fog, Fire and the Self-Knowledge Imperative
By Jim Collins

From the back cover: “Two rock musicians confronting a future without the group that had brought them success. Two public figures tainted by scandal having to make decisions about how to rebuild their lives. Two suffragists achieving their epic goal and so left with the puzzle of what to do next. Two figure skaters seeking new purpose when their Olympic careers come to an end. What emerges from Collins’s extensive studies—of writers, actors, scientists, leaders and many others—is a framework for understanding how individual lives can be built, sustained and constantly renewed.”

The Other Side of Change: Who We Become When Life Makes Other Plans
By Maya Shankar

From the back cover: “Shankar invites us to rethink our relationship with change altogether. When a big change happens to us, it can lead to profound change within us. The unique stresses and demands of being thrust into a new reality can lead us to uncover new abilities, perspectives, and values, transforming us in extraordinary ways. What if we saw moments of upheaval as an opportunity to reimagine who we can be, rather than as something to just endure?”

* * *

And four books to keep an eye out for this fall

Agency: The Psychological History of Human Progress (September 8)
By Martin Seligman

From the back cover: “What actually drives human progress? Ecologists point to geography and climate. Sociologists invoke wars and class. Economists follow the money. But none of these accounts explains why innovation and human thriving occurs in some eras and stalls in others—often under identical material conditions. The missing variable, Seligman argues, is the psychological state known as: agency. . . Drawing on six decades of pioneering research and a sweeping reexamination of the last twenty-five hundred years . . . Seligman reveals how surges and declines in agency have quietly steered the course of history.”

Artificial Intimacy: Who We Become When We Talk to Machines
(September 29)
By Sherry Turkle

From the back cover: “Artificial Intimacy is unique in how it traces our new habit of talking to machines through the lifecycle—from children’s earliest attachments to how we face death. But technology, by offering to do everything, teaches us that we neither need nor have the capacity to take risks, have hard conversations, struggle through uncertainty or insecurity, or rely on our own faculties and judgment. Turkle has spent decades studying how digital technologies isolate us from one another. Now, in her long-awaited follow-up to Reclaiming Conversation, she offers both a cautionary tale and a roadmap for reclaiming our humanity in the age of AI.”

Profits, Prophets, Coaches and Kings: (When) Do Leaders Matter?
(September 1)
By Jared Diamond

From the back cover: “We often read history as the biographies of ‘great men’ who shaped the world. But are leaders, whichever field they are in, really that influential? . . . Historian and bestselling author Jared Diamond argues that leaders are neither heroic exceptions nor products of circumstance. Looking at four different spheres: history, business, sport, and religion, Diamond asks under which conditions is a leader most likely to make a difference and why.”

Situated: Find the People and Places That Bring Out Your Best (September 1)
By Angela Duckworth

From the back cover: “How you situate yourself to meet a challenge can be crucial. Duckworth’s in-depth research reveals the enormous influence wielded by the objects within arm’s reach, your peers and mentors, and even your zip code. Though you’re often told to make the best of your situation, it is far, far better to make your situation better first.”

Disclosure: Evan Nesterak worked as an editorial consultant on In a Good Place. Heather Graci worked as an editorial consultant on Situated. Maya Shankar serves as an advisor to Behavioral Scientist. Advisors do not play a role in the editorial decisions of the magazine.

When you purchase a book using a link, we’ll receive a small commission that helps us sustain our nonprofit mission.

The post Behavioral Scientist’s Summer Book List 2026 appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Sequencing departures like a moving puzzle, scrambling when a jet takes off without clearance, and catching what radar misses with a glance out the window with Michael Rejent, an air traffic controller. What does "tally ho" mean to a pilot? What phrase makes every controller in the cab look up?

[buzzsprout episode='19294755' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Air Traffic Controller” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured Michael Rejent. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…an Air Traffic Controller appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.

Hugging a mother through an anxiety attack, bidding for the best routes, and absorbing strangers' confessions at 35,000 feet with Linda Beall, a flight attendant. What does it mean when the cabin bells ring three or four times? And what makes a trip a “dog”?

[buzzsprout episode='19322844' player='true']

View the episode transcript

About What It's Like to Be...
In each episode of What It's Like to Be..., bestselling author Dan Heath speaks with someone about what it's like to walk in their (work) shoes. Behavioral Scientist serves as a distribution partner with episodes released every other week. Learn more about the podcast's mission of "slow curiosity" here, and head here to get Dan's reflections on how the mission is going after a year of conversations.

The “Flight Attendant” episode of What It’s Like To Be… featured Linda Beall. It was produced and edited by Matt Purdy. Copyright © 2026 by Dan Heath. All rights reserved.

The post What It’s Like to Be…a Flight Attendant appeared first on Behavioral Scientist.