Behavioral science has given us powerful frameworks for understanding human behavior. One of the most iconic is Daniel Kahneman’s System 1 and System 2: the fast, intuitive brain vs. the slow, analytical one. But while these systems explain how we think, they don’t fully explain how we engage with behavioral science itself. Through informal conversations, cross-disciplinary reflection, and repeated pattern recognition, a new framework has emerged—one that describes how people interact with behavioral science, whether as trained experts or instinctive observers. We call it the Modal Model of Behavioral Science Engagement.

The Four Modes of Behavioral Science Engagement This model categorizes behavior across two key dimensions:

  • Awareness: conscious vs. unconscious
  • Intent: applying vs. rejecting behavioral science principles These axes generate four distinct engagement modes.

Mode 1: Operating Within Behavioral Science Definition: Consciously applying known behavioral science principles with intent. Examples:

  • UX designers using friction to shape user choices
  • Policymakers leveraging loss aversion in messaging
  • Marketers applying anchoring in pricing structures Cognitive Profile: Deliberate, reflective, System 2-heavy thinking. High behavioral science fluency.

Mode 2: Recognizing Behavioral Science Definition: Intuitively identifying behavioral patterns, even if not naming them explicitly. Examples:

  • Sensing the sunk cost fallacy in a friend’s decision
  • Noticing defensive behavior when identity is challenged Cognitive Profile: A bridge between System 1 and System 2. Instinctive recognition, often labeled in hindsight.

Mode 3: Identifying New Behavioral Patterns Definition: Generating theories, spotting gaps, or naming emerging dynamics not yet defined. Examples:

  • Proposing concepts like “moral pile-ons” or “identity-protective cognition”
  • Asking, “Why does this keep happening?” in response to repeated dissonance Cognitive Profile: System 1 senses the pattern; System 2 builds the theory. The creative engine of behavioral advancement.

Mode 4: Operating Outside Behavioral Science Definition: Rejecting, subverting, or parodying behavioral principles—either intentionally or unknowingly. Examples:

  • Satirists mocking pseudoscientific applications
  • Trolls triggering crowd reactions to reveal biases
  • Critics dismissing behavioral insights due to distrust or ideology Cognitive Profile: Can be reactionary (System 1) or reflective and strategic (System 2), depending on intent.

How This Model Differs Most frameworks in behavioral science—like System 1/2, COM-B, or practitioner typologies—focus on:

  • Cognitive styles
  • Behavior change
  • Role-based expertise The Modal Model adds something distinct:
  • A way to understand meta-awareness in how people relate to behavioral science
  • Recognition of intentional satire or ideological rejection (Mode 4)
  • A space for creative theory generation (Mode 3), often overlooked in formal models It offers a more layered view of behavioral literacy—one that encompasses skills, instincts, and commentary.

Who Operates in Each Mode? Mode Common Profiles Mode 1 Behavioral scientists, applied psychologists, UX designers trained in behavioral methods Mode 2 Intuitive thinkers, observant writers, reflective individuals who sense behavioral dynamics instinctively Mode 3 Theorists, pattern-spotters, outsiders who develop new ways of framing behavior Mode 4 Satirists, skeptics, cultural critics, or ideologically motivated detractors of behavioral frameworks

Why This Matters Behavioral science language is now common—terms like nudge, bias, and heuristic have entered public discourse. But with that popularity comes confusion:

  • People conflate knowing with applying
  • Others mock ideas without understanding them
  • Some generate new insights without formal training The Modal Model helps clarify this terrain:
  • It defines the spectrum of behavioral engagement
  • It legitimizes diverse forms of interaction, including critique and creativity
  • It enables individuals to map their growth, shifting across modes over time

Where Do You Sit? Consider the following:

  • Do you consciously apply behavioral concepts? (Mode 1)
  • Do you intuitively recognize behavioral patterns? (Mode 2)
  • Do you identify contradictions or gaps in public behavior? (Mode 3)
  • Do you critique, reject, or parody behavioral science? (Mode 4) Most of us operate in multiple modes depending on context. Understanding this can help us grow more intentional in how we engage with the field.

An Invitation If this model resonates—or if you have critiques or refinements—reach out. This is a living framework, shaped by observation, dialogue, and open inquiry. As with any good behavioral science model, it starts by paying attention to how people actually behave.