The Surprising Ways Incentives Don’t Work, And the Alternatives That Do

Subscribe to The Behavior Change Podcast

Transcript

Greg Stilestra:

Hello, and welcome to the Behavior Change Podcast by Lirio, the program where we explore the marvels of behavioral science and ways of applying it to make a better world. I’m your host, Greg Stielstra. On today’s show, we’ll talk with Sara Dadkhah.

Sara Dadkhah:

It rhymes with vodka.

Greg Stielstra:

Sara is a behavioral scientist.

Sara Dadkhah:

I prefer czar or supreme leader, but…

Greg Stielstra:

An expert in incentives, and as you can probably hear, quite a lot of fun. In a moment, we’ll talk with her about incentives, why your intuitions about them are probably wrong and the surprising ways they really work, but as always, we’ll begin with a bias brief.

Bias brief number 22: Unit Bias

Did you eat too much last Thanksgiving? Many people struggle with moderation around the holidays when celebratory meals, decadent treats, and family recipes abound. One thing that doesn’t help is the urge many of us have to finish everything on our plate. This urge can be attributed, at least partially, to something called unit bias. If you’ve ever felt you should finish the chapter of the book you were reading before placing it on the nightstand, then you have felt the nudge of unit bias. Unit bias describes people’s desire to complete a unit of a given item or task. By influencing someone’s perception of what constitutes a unit, you can lead them to press on when they might have quit or quit when they might have continued.

A study was conducted in which people were presented with soft pretzels. When whole pretzels were offered, people ate an entire pretzel. But when pretzels were cut in half, people only ate half. The subjects perceived whatever portion they were given as a unit and dutively consumed it.

In another experiment, researchers gave people tubes of potato chips. Some received standard tubes where all the chips were the same color. Others received modified tubes where every seventh chip was colored red. This created smaller units that made it easier for subjects to mark their consumption. The participants who received the tubes that were divided into smaller units by red chips ate fewer of them. When you want to influence people’s consumption or participation, leverage unit bias to nudge them toward more or less. To decrease consumption, reduce unit size. Need to feed more people next Thanksgiving? Provide smaller plates. People perceive a plateful as a unit and will be satisfied with less food. To increase consumption, increase unit size. Want people to buy additional products or services? Try bundling them into packages.

Keep in mind, for unit bias to work on consumption, the units must fit into a socially acceptable size range. If you make a unit too small, people will consume more units. To increase participation in a program or behavior, try breaking it into small, easy to achieve units. This makes progress less intimidating and more achievable, while rewarding participants with a gratifying sense of accomplishment along the way. Combined with default bias, our tendency to go with the flow of pre-set options, unit bias can be a powerful addition to your behavioral toolbox. An understanding of unit bias can be helpful in many areas from fixing your next dinner plate to increasing participation in your company’s next big initiative.

Greg Stielstra:
Sara Dadkhah rhymes with vodka, hey, I want to welcome you to the Behavior Change Podcast by Lirio, and thank you so much for your willingness to participate.

Sara Dadkhah:
Of course. It’s wonderful to be here.

GS:
Today, I thought we’d explore the wide world of incentives. I think they get used a lot, especially in business by HR managers trying to get their employees to do one thing or another, and I think they get misused an awful lot. If you’re an HR manager listening to this program, get ready to learn something about incentives, what works, what doesn’t, and why.

GS:
Let’s start maybe with the different kinds of incentives, intrinsic and extrinsic.

SD:
Yeah. I think that is a great way to kick us off, because I think traditionally, we’ve thought of incentives as extrinsic motivation. There’s this assumption that people behave like rats in a maze and that there’s this positive external reward driving our behavior, but what we’ve learned through psychology research and behavioral economics is that, really, there’s a slew of things that motivate us. At times, we’ve found that some of these intrinsic rewards backfire, and they crowd out some of the intrinsic motivation.

GS:
We don’t always want cheese?

SD:
We don’t always want cheese, or if we get that cheese, we might not do that same behavior when the cheese is no longer available.

GS:
What are some examples of crowding out that come to mind?

SD:
Sure, yeah. One of the seminal studies on this was in 1975 where the researchers went and studied nursery school kids. These kids were between three and five-years-old, and they observed them for a few days with pens and markers, and they kind of saw the baseline rates of how much kids liked playing with these markers. Then, the next few days, they separated the kids into three different study groups. One of them was, I guess they would call it, the expected award condition. They told these kids that, “If you participate, if you use these felt tip pens, we’re going to give you a ribbon for drawing with these pens.” In the second condition, they didn’t tell the kids anything, but they did receive the award after they finished the activity, and then that-

GS:
So, it was a surprise?

SD:
It was a surprise, yeah. They were coloring as they normally would, and then some of them were pleasantly surprised by getting this prize, and then the third condition was the no reward condition. They weren’t told anything and weren’t given any reward of any kind. The experimenters ran this for a little while for, I think, a few days, but the more interesting thing was, after the activity was done, then they watched the kids again to see.

SD:
In the free setting, without any rewards, without any researchers really in their way, what would happen? They noticed that the kids who had received a reward and expected reward played with the markers less. In other words, the kids that didn’t receive a reward, or they received a reward, but they weren’t expecting one, no real change in the amount that they enjoyed playing with markers. But the kids that got rewarded for it, suddenly didn’t find it as appealing anymore.

SD:
The way that this has been interpreted is a term called over-justification. If someone has to reward me for something, they have to give me money, for example, that’s a normal cue that we use, well, I might interpret this as maybe there’s something wrong with this behavior that people wouldn’t normally do it on their own. I have to be paid to do it, so maybe it’s not such a good behavior, after all.

GS:
So, I sort of downgrade my assessment of the behavior because you felt it was necessary to pay me to do it.

SD:
Exactly. You tell your kids to eat their broccoli, and you’ll pay them a dollar if they eat it. Well, if broccoli was a cool thing to eat, I wouldn’t have to be paid to eat it, so maybe broccoli is bad, and I don’t want it.

GS:
So, if I paid my kids to stop cleaning their room…

SD:
I think we should run that experiment and see what happens.

GS:
I feel like we’ve been running that experiment. That’s really interesting. We fail to think it through to that extent. Right? We imagine that if you want somebody to do something, you pay them to do it. They’ll do it, but there are, sometimes, unintended consequences. Right? They may be less likely to do it when you withhold payment.

SD:
Exactly. Oftentimes, money is just the tricky thing, too, because if you want to get a behavior one time, sure, you can pay people to do it. But if it’s something that you want to continue, well then you better have a deep well of money to be able to pay them each time for that activity. If you don’t, that’s where we want to get a little bit more creative with our incentives.

GS:
Yeah. And so, there are some better alternatives. We mentioned intrinsic rewards at the start. Let’s talk about some of those and how they can be more motivational and longer-lasting than extrinsic rewards, like cash.

SD:
Intrinsic rewards, I would normally use that as the desire that you already have to do something. If I love playing with those markers, that’s my intrinsic motivation. I guess depending on who you talk to, I wonder if they would classify these as extrinsic or intrinsic, but there’s non-monetary ones, such as reputational benefits and pro-social kind of warm fuzzy feelings or social connection. There’s a lot of other things that motivate us to take actions that aren’t necessarily the traditional financial incentive.

GS:
Let’s talk about non-monetary extrinsic rewards first and then maybe segue into intrinsic, and then just a curiosity I have is, I know how to turn up to amplify the power of an extrinsic reward, like if I give you $40 instead of $20.

SD:
Sure.

GS:
But are there methods for amplifying the power of an intrinsic reward, amplifying its value?

SD:
That’s a great question, yeah, because the ones that come to mind for me is just increasing the salience of that. Did we talk about… It was under the give it meaning, so I’m jumping all around, but the study by Adam Grant where it was a telemarketing company, and the people who were working in this telemarketing office were calling to solicit alumni donations to a university. That’s rough. Right? Telemarketing is a tough… It’s tough to cold call people, tough to ask for money, so it’s really rough. But in one of the conditions, they actually brought in a beneficiary of these funds. These funds were coming in to be able to provide scholarships to people who couldn’t afford school, for example. They brought in one of the beneficiaries to have personal contact with the telemarketers, and that greatly increased people’s willingness to, both, endure the call time and the amount of donations that they received.

GS:
Very interesting.

SD:
Yeah. I think one way, in particular, to just turn up the dial on that intrinsic is to increase the salience and all those framing strategies that we had learned.

GS:
Yeah. You raise a good point, one of which that I wanted to mention is the salience of the reward. Another is the timing of the reward. I was working with an organization that was paying money to people to do certain health behaviors. The way they would pay them is they would give them $100, but they’d put it into their regular pay over a period of many months.

SD:
Oh, wow.

GS:
The net effect was, your paycheck is increased by a few dollars, and it’s directly deposited into your account. You never see the extrinsic reward, and it’s spread out into the future where it encounters problems around present bias and hyperbolic discounting.

SD:
I think that’s a great example. You don’t even feel it. You don’t notice it. You don’t get any of the good feelings that come with it, versus maybe if they had just given the person a candy bar at that moment.

GS:
Yeah. Give me a $5 coupon in the company cafeteria for lunch that day, and you’d save $95 and get better uptake on your task.

SD:
I think so. I think you’re totally right.

GS:
I think studies are always interesting because it takes it out of the realm of theory into real application.

SD:
Yeah. Our intuition is so often wrong. We think a lot of these things are common sense, but once we run these studies, you get to see, actually, the story is a little bit different. One of these studies was to test employee motivation. I thought it was really interesting. It was at a setting conductor factory where it’s already designed to be great for an experiment because the unit of production for each employee are these chips, so you can just count the chips to see how productive employees are being.

GS:
Great metric.

SD:
Great metric. And so, at the beginning of the week, workers got one of three messages or no message at all, and that was the control group. The three messages was that if you increased your production for that day, you would get a $30 bonus. The second condition received a note saying that they would receive a voucher for free pizza. The third was you would receive a compliment from your boss. And so, offhand, it’s hard to know. Do you have a gut intuition about what would be most effective?

GS:
Well, I do, but I’ve studied this for too long, so it wouldn’t be fair.

SD:
All right, good point.

GS:
Let our listeners guess and then break their hearts with your answer.

SD:
With the real answer?

GS:
Yeah.

SD:
Well, I can tell you, when I first guessed, I thought money. I’m like, $30 is much more money than a pizza and a compliment. I can get a compliment any time, but that’s not what we saw. After the very first day, the pizza proved to be the top motivator, increasing the productivity by, I think, around 6-7%, compared to the control group. Then the second highest was the compliment from the boss, followed by the cash bonus. It’s not that the cash bonus wasn’t effective. It was still above the control group, but a cheaper voucher for pizza and a free compliment beat it out.

GS:
Something that’s interesting to me, and perhaps this would be another experiment to run is, what’s the long-term effect of the compliment? Because when my boss says, “Great job, Greg,” it changes how I see myself. I see myself as someone who does a great job, and commitment and consistency would tell us that I would work harder into the future to preserve that self-image than I would under a $30 condition.

SD:
Yeah, I agree with you. I think the desire… and there’s a lot of research on this, too. The desire to be consistent is a pretty strong motivator for people, as well. People who make some sort of statement will, oftentimes, bend over backwards in the future just to make sure that they have this internal consistency. If you develop this self-image of being a good employee, well then in addition to that immediate good feeling from your boss, I think you’re right, that there’s a good chance that that carries over and continues in the future. In this particular study, the pizza one, the compliment one, I think, if I’m not mistaken, that compliment won out in the end.

GS:
I think you’re right.

SD:
Yeah. They mostly were turned to baseline after a week or two with cash actually backfiring, but the compliment had the longest enduring effect.

GS:
What they did not attempt was taking the $30 and then paying it to your boss to compliment you multiple times.

SD:
I think there’s something to be said about the authentic compliment. We’re pretty good [crosstalk 00:16:16], too.

GS:
This is probably interesting to a lot of people who are listening, but they’re thinking, “Oh my gosh, I’m already paying people.” Let’s talk about some ways if you’re using money as an incentive that you can use it more effectively. You can get more bang, quite literally, for your buck if you do what?

SD:
I think there’s a few good examples on that one. On the idea of crowding out intrinsic motivation, some people are challenging that, and there’s a study about getting kids to eat their vegetables. You and I had talked about broccoli before. These researchers, basically, they asserted that if you can use the financial incentive long enough to create a habit, then that might be enough to carry the desired behavior forward.

SD:
The way that they did this was to go to 40 elementary schools and give kids a token each day that they ate their vegetables, or at least one serving of vegetable or fruit. These tokens could be used at the student store, at their book fair. They ran this intervention in a few different ways, sometimes three weeks, sometimes five weeks. Then they studied the consumption of fruit and vegetables after, for two months after that intervention.

SD:
What they found was, sure enough, as you would expect, when they’re getting these tokens, the consumption of fruits and vegetables shot up. But afterwards, they did dip, but they still stayed above baseline for even two months out. They showed that this was kind of a financial incentive. It was a token, but they could use it as cash in their student store, but they asserted that it was long enough for these three weeks or five weeks to build this habit of eating vegetables that was able to persist, even after the intervention was done.

GS:
That’s interesting. Now I’m thinking about Charles Duhigg’s book, The Power of Habit, where he said, “A habit consists of a trigger, a routine, and then a reward.” In this particular case, the money would be the reward, but I wonder whether you can make the money you spend on incentives more effective if you apply it in a way with a consistent trigger, followed by the routine that you desire. If you want kids to eat vegetables, are you paying them that reward, eliciting that routine with a trigger at the same time of day, perhaps, or in the same way? By giving the reward in a routine way, can you enhance the power of habit?

SD:
Yeah. I mean, I think that-

GS:
Feel free to speculate.

SD:
Yeah. I would 100% be speculating because I can’t think of any… But there’s a lot on associative memory, which I wonder if that could be something that plays in, not quite really incentives here, but just some of the studies that popped into my mind have to do with if you can associate the reward with some sort of cue, and then that cue remains, people are much more likely to… It triggers that same kind of feeling, but I think there’s a lot of room for research on timing with regards to incentives. Actually, that’s one of the arguments for… You can get points, rather than money. Sometimes money is hard to administer, or other kinds of incentives are hard, but points, if you’re given… They’re free, or sometimes they equate to money, but a company has a lot more control over when they’re dispersed, how they’re dispersed, and it gives the user immediate feedback that they’re doing the desired behavior. So lots of times, points can be an effective quick way to get a reward.

GS:
Or use points that can be converted later to money, so you can control the distribution of points during the process and let them convert it to money as an incentive later.

SD:
Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense.

GS:
You’ve talked about using money for one time behaviors. I’ve also heard you say, “Pay enough or don’t pay at all.”

SD:
That’s right. That’s right. That’s one of my favorite subtitles to a paper. There’s one study, in particular, where kids were going door-to-door, asking for donations. Then at one point, the researchers introduced a payment. I wish I remember exactly how much it was, but it was measly. It wasn’t a lot at all. They found out the kids were much less likely to persist going door-to-door and collect donations because the small amount just suddenly made it not so interesting. One thing that could’ve been happening is, they were initially motivated by this pro-social aspect and wanting to go door-to-door and collect for a good cause, or even just the pride of they’re having this target to raise the most money. But once you introduced a payment, it switched things. It became a lot more transactional. If someone is paying me a dollar per hour, for example, well, I don’t know. That seems like a very small amount, and I’m not as interested in continuing the activity.

GS:
I’ve heard of similar studies. A group of attorneys asked to prepare wills for indigent clients at a rate of $30 an hour. They all refused because that set the choice in sort of a market context where the question they asked themselves was, “Is that fair compensation?” They’re like, “No, I usually make $300 an hour, so I’m not going to do my job for a tenth of that pay.”

SD:
[crosstalk 00:22:01].

GS:
But when they asked those same attorneys, “Well, would you do it for free?” They said, “Yes.”

SD:
Yeah. Of course, out of the kindness of my heart.

GS:
Because it shifted the context. Now it’s a social context, and I’m asking myself a different question. “Is this the right thing to do?” That answer was, “Yes,” and so they took a $30 an hour pay cut and accepted work.

SD:
Wow. One of my favorite other examples of how, again, it shifts the type of question that you’re asking yourself is the daycare study that we discussed before where this daycare was having trouble getting parents to pick their kids up on time. And so, they thought, let’s figure out a way to motivate, to incentivize parents to come on time, and they decided that they were going to have a late fee. And so, whenever parents were, I forgot, more than 10 minutes late, they would charge them $5. Oh, boy, were they surprised, because immediately, the number of people being late and the amount of time that they were late by shot up.

GS:
Sure.

SD:
It was baffling. But when you look at it, you think about it. You realize a parent is struggling to leave work and go pick their kid up from daycare. They’re motivated by the social contract. They know that someone has been watching their kid all day, that this is a kind person. They don’t want to trespass on their free time. They’ve already been imposing on them. But as soon as you put a price on it, as soon as you tell me, “Well, it’s okay for you to be five minutes late, you just need to pay me a couple of dollars,” well, that switches things. If I have a paper to finish or I’m sending a few emails, I’m a little bit more inclined to do those, knowing that I can just pay my way out of this.

GS:
Sure. When it’s a social contract, I’m being unfair to the other person if I’m late. But as soon as they set a price, we know the const of fairness. I can be late and feel good about it, and just pay the difference, pay the penalty.

SD:
Well-said. They realized this after, I think, about four weeks of putting in these late fees. And so, they took it away. One of the interesting things is, they were not able to reverse the issue.

GS:
Yeah. That’s a very good point. If you begin with financial incentives, you’re probably done, extrinsic, paying people. If you’re going to experiment, probably better to experiment with alternate incentives, saving your cash incentives as a last result.

SD:
I’d agree. I think money is just a tricky thing, overall. Like you said, it’s very easy to switch a social relationship to a transactional relationship. It’s a tricker thing to switch that back. We want to protect it. If you do have a social norm in place, see if you can protect that. See if you could leverage that before getting into the transactional realm.

GS:
Now you can give money as an incentive and not have it be purely transactional. Talk a little bit about lotteries, and particular, regret lotteries, which I think are very interesting.

SD:
Yeah. There’s one case I remember where it was a large healthcare management company, and they wanted to have their employees complete a health-risk assessment form. This was part of their employee wellness program. And so, it was already set up such that every employee could earn $25 for completing the form, but even so, I think they had about a 40% response rate. And so, management was looking to see, what can we do? How can we get this number higher? Management had authorized the researchers to spend up to $50 on each completed form. So already, they’re willing to put this money together, but these researchers decided to get crafty. And so, they thought, what if we pull in a lottery system? We had a set amount of money. We’re not going to spend more than we planned. Let’s say we have $25 per person that we can add on top of the initial amount that they were entitled to.

SD:
They did a few different things, so it’s a little bit hard to tease out exactly which mechanism worked best, but basically, one group was the control, so they continued to receive the $25 if they were to fill out the form and submit it. One of the other groups received $50 direct payment if they filled out the form. The third group was subdivided into these teams of four individuals, and then they would do something called a regret lottery each week where everyone’s name was already put into the lottery, and then once a week, a name was pulled out and called. If your name was called and you had turned in that form, well then, you had won $100. But if you hadn’t, if they pulled your name and you hadn’t filled it out, you didn’t get it.

And so, what was really driving it there… There was already the financial incentive, but you were really motivated not to feel that regret of imagining them pulling your name out, reading it, and then having to say, “Oh, wow, I beat all the odds and had my name pulled, but I didn’t actually fill out the form, so I can’t get that $100.”

GS:
Right. A near miss hurts worse than a miss.

SD:
Oh, yeah. You can just imagine it. Imagine putting yourself in that situation. Really, if they were in teams of four, the expected value, the amount that the employer was willing to pay evened out. It was the same amount of money, but it was a lot more effective.

GS:
Did everyone on the team of four have to do the required behavior for anyone on the team to win?

SD:
In this specific study, they made it such that if 80% of the group had completed the assessment, then they get a bonus 25%, or sorry, bonus $25. It wasn’t the simplest design, but if we take a step back and look at it, a few things, there’s social pressure of not wanting to disappoint your teammates. There’s the regret aversion. All in all, at the end of the day, it costs the employer the same amount of money, but they saw the percentage increase from, I want to say, the 40% base rate to about 65% without spending an additional penny.

GS:
If we move away from using money as an incentive to things… We’re going to give prizes, perhaps. What’s the psychology of stuff when we use it as an incentive?

SD:
Yeah. Psychology of stuff. One good thing about stuff, in particular, is the idea of social artifacts. Stuff lasts. If you were to give someone a certificate or some sort of… You use your tickets at Chuck E. Cheese and you go home with the prize, you have this physical object that can continue to remind you of the event. And so, that’s one of the benefits of stuff, is it endures enough to keep the benefit going.

Then yeah, just like you said, getting a cup of coffee has a different feeling than getting $3.40, which is the equivalent. Stuff might convey a different message with it or carry a different value. I think in these instances, it is really the thought that counts.

GS:
Is it a little more concrete, too? Because when I think of cash, I would probably turn cash into something, but because I haven’t turned it into that something yet, its value is a little less concrete than the thing, itself.

SD:
Right. Cash is great because you can spend it on things. Just having cash is the potential of spending that gives you the joy, but there’s nothing yet.

GS:
Yeah.

SD:
It reminds me of having the tangible reminder makes things… It can be more powerful than money. For example, there’s a study where we were trying to encourage participants to reach certain savings goals. To do that, they were offered a pre-match. Well, there’s a few different things. They would get a cash match in a few different formats, one that would trigger loss aversion and one that wouldn’t. Then in one case, they received a coin that every time a week would pass by, they would mark off on part of the coin. They would scratch it off as a reminder that they had reached that mark. Then there’s another arm to the study where they would receive an emotional trigger. They would receive a message framed as coming from their child, saying, “Mommy, daddy, please save for our family.” Again, my intuition would’ve been that, “Mommy, daddy, please save,” because that tugs on my heart strings.

GS:
Tugging on heart strings, yeah.

SD:
Exactly, exactly. But it turns out, the coin condition won, which is baffling because you’re getting money in the match. You’re getting free money. But having that coin, we think, allowed people to have a tangible reminder with them all the time, something that they could play with in their pocket, something that would keep reminding them, like that social artifact, of the desired behavior, and not just when they happened to be thinking about their goals.

GS:
Interesting. I feel like maybe looping back a little bit to our money discussion, but the way you frame and present an incentive also matters. I’m thinking about the teachers study in loss aversion.

SD:
Yeah. That one is a great one. In this study, teachers were assigned to get bonuses either at the end of the year, which is pretty normal, or at the beginning of the year with the threat of having to pay money back if the students didn’t reach certain targets.

GS:
Yikes.

SD:
Yeah. That’s nerve-racking. Having a good teacher matters. The quality of the teacher affects student learning and outcomes. And so, it makes sense that the bonus would be tied to student performance. What we found is that the feeling of the risk of losing money hurts twice as much compared to the idea of gaining an equal amount of money. We call this concept loss aversion. It’s to avoid that feeling of loss. The teachers who had received their bonuses upfront were willing to work harder to keep that bonus, versus those that didn’t actually have the money in their pockets yet, but knew that there was a bonus in store for them in the future.

GS:
It’s interesting. A lot of people I’ve worked in the past would shy away from something like that because they would imagine the teachers not liking it or rebelling against it. If you’re an HR manager, you worry about noise from the employees. But if I recall correctly, not only did it work. The teachers appreciated the fact that it worked and enjoyed it because it did.

SD:
Exactly. I think it’s important to test assumptions. We all have these kind of knee jerk reactions of how we would feel, but it turns out, they went back and asked these teachers. They gave them an assessment of their willingness to pay to be in these different types of contracts. That’s just an assessment of, how much did you like being in this setup where you got your bonus at the beginning of the year versus at the end of the year? The bonus upfront, the loss aversion scheme, which we thought would cause lots of stress and anxiety, won out. Teachers were willing to pay more to be in that situation. And so, they found it a valuable mechanism to push themselves. Yeah. I think it’s a great example, again, of wanting to test our intuition because even though we thought it would cause complaints… Who knows? Maybe the first few days, it did. It ultimately won out, and the teachers were happier because of it.

GS:
Yeah. Big takeaway for me is, incentives are probably a lot more to them than people imagine that, if you’re really trying to figure out the best way to incentivize your people, you might do well to seek out the advice of a behavioral scientist, like yourself, and to run some experiments because there could be several ways of approaching it, and it’s important to know which one works best, and sometimes there’s a pretty impressive difference between various approaches.

SD:
Yeah. There’s so many different ways to run experiments. I think it’s always in the company’s long-term interest to try to do this with any… to be able to take more risks and to be able to take some risks, but measure their effectiveness before moving forward.

GS:
If you enjoyed the conversation today, I’d encourage you to look into Irrational Labs Behavioral Economics Bootcamp. Sara is one of the instructors there. I know I certainly benefited from her wisdom, and I think you would, too. I want to thank you for being part of the conversation today, Sara.

SD:
Thank you. It’s wonderful to chat with you.

GS:
You’ve been listening to the Behavior Change Podcast by Lirio. Lirio provides an email-based behavioral engagement solution that uses machine learning, persona-based messaging, and behavioral science to help organizations motivate the people they serve to achieve better outcomes on the web at lirio.co. L-I-R-I-O.C-O, or follow us on Twitter @Lirio_LLC.