Why you know what to do and still don't do it — with UCLA Nudge Unit Co-Director Hengchen Dai.

What does it truly take to change what we do — for yourself and at scale, sustainably in the real world? In this episode, Angela sits down with Hengchen Dai, Associate Professor at UCLA Anderson and co-director of the UCLA Nudge Unit, to explore the science behind why people do what they do, and what it takes to shift it. Hengchen brings rigorous academic research published in Nature and other notable publications, and field experiments run inside hospitals, university health systems, and nat...

• 0:09Speaker 00

  Have you ever wondered why you or people you lead, people you know, know exactly what to do and still don't do it? You know, you should exercise or eat better. Your team knows they should use the new system or new application or more AI. Perhaps you have co-chiefs or patients who know they should book the screening, take the medication and yet nothing happens. That gap between knowing and doing is one of the most frustrating puzzles in human behavior. And it turns out the solution isn't more information or more willpower or discipline or better intentions.

• 0:53Speaker 00

  It's something else, something we're going to talk about on this podcast. Welcome to Change Wired. My name is Angela Sharina. I'm your host. I'm your transformation in change, personal and collective evolution, your executive health and high performance coach 360. I'm just someone who is really passionate and obsessed with unlocking, using more human potential, but also, which is fundamental to the process of unlocking more human potential, is learning how change works, understanding change better on a psychological, on a biological, on a human level. So then we can create more change more effectively.

• 1:36Speaker 00

  Because at the end of the day, any evolution, any improvement, any growth requires change. Today I'm joined by someone who has made it her mission to close this gap between knowing and doing, not just in theory, but in the real world and at massive scale. Han Ching Dai is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Behavioral Decision Making at UCLA Anderson School of Management and co-director of the UCLA Nudge Unit, where she works directly with UCLA Health to design and test interventions that improve patient

• 2:16Speaker 00

  outcomes and physician engagement. Her research has appeared in Nature, Management Science, featured in New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Freakonomics. She's been named one of the world's 40 best B-school professors under 40 by Points and Quants, and just this year received the 2026 Early Career Impact Award from the Federation of Association in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. In short, Han Ching doesn't just study how to change behavior. She runs real-world field experiments with organizations, hospitals, universities, pharmacy change. She finds

• 2:56Speaker 00

  out what actually works in the world. Why you should listen, guys. If you're, if you want to know why behavioral change is never one size fits all, and how to use people's past experiences, your own experience, your own behavior as a simple, powerful signal to use in the future interventions or behavior change or habit change so it is more effective. We're going to talk a lot about what Han Ching Dai studied a lot, the fresh start effect, why New Year's Day, birthdays, work anniversaries, and even moving to a new desk or a new room in your apartment give people motivational bursts they need, and how you can deliberately

• 3:39Speaker 00

  time your initiatives or behavior change or habit change to ride that wave, that fresh start effect, to create more consistency and more motivation.

• 3:51Speaker 00

  The hidden cost of friction or making things hotter than they should be. Why a two click, just two click detour in a patient portal reduce cancer screening screening rates? And what that means for every process you design? If you don't make it easy, it's a big chance that it's not gonna work. Why timing a message can matter more than the message itself? The fascinating experiment Hank Chen did where a pop up after donating had near 100% engagement while a text sent two minutes later had virtually zero. The monitoring paradox, what happened to hand hygiene in hospitals when electronic

• 4:36Speaker 00

  monitoring was removed and the critical lesson it holds for any leader or anyone rolling out any change or rolling it back? How being watched is actually a big deal and sometimes it works, but sometimes it backfires. How to make long term goals feel rewarding right now? And why finding the fun in any behavior is one of the most underused tools, one of the most effective tools for consistent durable change? Whether you are a leader trying to get your team to adopt new habits, a healthcare professional designing patient programs, or simply someone trying to understand your own behavior and change your own habits better, this episode is for you.

• 5:21Speaker 00

  So let's get into it. Here is my conversation with Hank Chen Dai. Dear Hank Chen, welcome to Change Wired Podcast. I'm so very happy to have you here because the topics that you are passionate about, that you've been studying and working with, it's, I would say, very fundamental or foundational for listeners of this podcast to understand and maybe get more masterful about. So thank you so much for coming to the podcast today.

• 5:50Speaker 01

  Thank you so much for having me here, Angela.

• 5:53Speaker 00

  Yes, and to set a little bit of a backstory and give our listeners a little bit more context. Where are you connecting from? What did you see you do? What do you live and breathe every day in your work?

• 6:11Speaker 01

  Yes, so I'm currently based in Los Angeles. I am an associate professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. Broadly speaking, I am a behavioral scientist and I do research about motivation. So try to understand what motivates employees and customers to engage in activities that could be helpful for them in the long term. It could include a wider range of activities and things like exercising more, eating healthy food, getting preventive care and save for retirement. Those are all the activities I have studied in various projects.

• 6:52Speaker 01

  And I usually work with companies to run field experiments or A B tests to understand how one intervention, right? Some changes that organization can implement would affect people's willingness to engage in those kinds of beneficiary activities.

• 7:09Speaker 00

  Such an interesting topic. I think we all need to understand a little bit more about how to motivate ourselves to do good behaviors that we want to do that benefit our life and do less of the things that don't direct, don't lead our life to where we want to go. And also, obviously, if someone is a leader, leads a team, an organization, or wants to affect the behavior of their customers, it's also very important to understand, like, why do people do what they do? And how can we help them to do more of the things we want them to do, what they want to do? So they are very, like, interesting topic and I'm good to hear all, you know, about that, or at least, you know, some core details.

• 7:51Speaker 00

  But before we jump into that, how did you come to study this and work in this field? Like, I don't know, what did you like as a kid? How, what did you study? How did you come to this career path?

• 8:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, definitely. So I was majored in economics back at Peking University. When I was an undergraduate there. As much as I loved economics, or more precise, I was able to get a good grades. I feel like something's missing. And then I stumbled upon psychology courses. I realized, oh, that's the missing piece I'm looking for because the psychology courses are giving me what I consider a more realistic understanding of how human operates, right, under, human operates under constraints, constraints related to information, time and cognitive capabilities. So I did a major in, a double major in psychology.

• 8:46Speaker 01

  And then the economics perspective and then the psychology training, psychological training are actually quite complementary. And I find my interest in behavioral economics. And that's what I applied PhD program, like I applied for the PhD program in behavioral economics. Because I realized that is the interdisciplinary area that I'm fascinated, I was fascinated about and I would like to do more research in. I end up going to, I did not end up going to actually a PhD program economics. I was lucky to find a slightly different but related path at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. And there I was more broadly exposed to behavioral science.

• 9:28Speaker 01

  It's, it could be a combination of insights from psychology, economics, marketing, management, and even operation management. So like, all of those disciplines have scholars who do research that tries to understand the human behavior. To understand how we can influence their behavior, how we can motivate people. You just need to take the methodology and then take the theories as you see fit for a given setting. And I was so. Fascinated by the opportunity to draw insights from those different area because the program I went to is a very interdisciplinary program. It's currently called Operation Information Management and wait, sorry. Currently it's called Operation Information and Decision Process.

• 10:13Speaker 01

  It used to have a different name, but the name already suggests it's actually combines scholars from different disciplines. So I was exposed to research from different fields and that and also my so that exposure and the opportunity to work with my former PhD advisor, Professor Katie Milkman, really opens my door and leads me to where I am now. So there I had an opportunity to learn probably from one of the best field experimentalists. I don't even know whether people have used that. We say, okay, maybe I will strike that. I don't know whether people really say that, but it's a very intuitive name for me. Okay.

• 10:52Speaker 01

  So at Wharton, working with Katie, I learned a lot about how to run complex field experiments with organizations to get deep to what drives people's motivation and how we can change it. And that has been a topic and a methodology that I focus on in the past decade. So that's pretty much where I came from, the combination of economics and psychology background, but also exposure to a broader set of disciplines at Wharton. And that has really shaped my interest and approach in doing research.

• 11:25Speaker 00

  And can I ask you, was there maybe underlying like passion or interest and curiosity that you were maybe asking yourself, well, I really wanna understand this thing or how it works? Like whether that's something about human behavior or maybe it's something personal? Like was it something that maybe sparked that interest in the whole intersection of psychology and economics and this human behavior?

• 11:51Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think early on, it was very broad interest, just trying to understand why psychologists see human behavior from a different lens, from economists, right? Why they have very different assumptions, like even that was already fascinating for me. And both are longstanding fields that have existed for so many years, but they are modeling human behavior using different methods, different model, different assumptions. So like that contrast was sufficient to get me hooked. And then later, I think while I was working with Professor Katie Milkman, what I got very excited about are indeed the reality that there are a lot of activities that could benefit people, right?

• 12:34Speaker 01

  Just taking vaccine, like vaccine has been very, like, for example, COVID vaccine, right? So it has gone through different phases of clinical trials. It's approved vaccine to be safe by FDA. Or maybe I don't, I think FDA said it's authorized for emergency use. So maybe that's not going to that detail in case that's not exactly wording. But anyway, I will just say, but if we think about vaccine, right? So like the COVID vaccine, it has gone through, rigorously gone through those different phases of clinical trials, have been verified to have effectiveness. Yet, why people are not taking up? And even among those people who have intention to get the COVID vaccine, they may not do it right away, right?

• 13:19Speaker 01

  But then in this context, if you can accelerate vaccine take up, get people to do it earlier, you can help to reduce the disease transmission. So this is one example of an activity that fascinates me because it's, to me, there are benefits to the individual, to the organization they work for, and to the society. Yet, people have different views about how effective they are. And even for those people believe it is an effective and useful thing to do, they do not necessarily do it, or they do not do it right away. So trying to understand what contributes to different beliefs and different uptake behavior, and how we can change behavior via either changing belief or changing the connection between belief and the behavior.

• 14:04Speaker 01

  Like that is broadly speaking what I'm very interested in.

• 14:08Speaker 00

  And what did you learn so far? Maybe share with our listeners, like what may be the most interesting, fascinating discoveries, insights that you got so far?

• 14:19Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think there are a number of lessons I'm happy to share. I think one lesson related to my recently published work is behavioral change is not one size feed all. The idea is we cannot just change people's behavior with, we cannot change everyone's behavior with the same intervention because their underlying belief is different, their underlying motivation is different. The barrier to the adoption of the beneficial activity is also different across people. So in a recent paper led by my amazing students and my amazing co-author, Ilana Brudy at

• 14:57Speaker 01

  UC of Edison, as well as Silva Secato at CMU, and Katie Milkman Angela Duckworth, and Dana Gromen, and there is one more, oh yeah. And also, I feel like that's really long. So maybe I'll just say who led it. Okay, never mind. Okay. So this paper was co-led by amazing co-author Ilana Brudy and Silva Secato. There, we actually looked at how people's past adoption of a given activity such as vaccination affects their reactions to different types of behavioral intervention, right? So the idea is, okay, sure, maybe it's obvious behavioral interventions are not going to

• 15:37Speaker 01

  be a one size feed all, but then the question is, how can we target people differently? What are the factors about a population that we can use so we know the right intervention to deliver to a given population? So what we focus on there is people's past adoption of a given activity. So in the flu shot context would be, okay, did they get the flu shot in the prior year? Right? So if they got flu shot in the prior year, then that means those people probably have some... Recognition of the value of getting a flu shot, right? Because last year, they bothered to take action. So they probably have some agreement with the effectiveness of the vaccine, the usefulness of getting vaccinated.

• 16:20Speaker 01

  But if they have not yet got vaccinated this year, then the barrier for them to adopting vaccination this year may be forgetfulness. Maybe they just forgot to do it. Or maybe they have put it off and they they plan to come to do it later. But then the later never come because they keep forgetting, keep procrastinating, right? Versus the other set of people who did not get a flu shot in prior year. And those people may not got it because, may not get it because they don't recognize the value of get a flu shot or they don't agree with the value of getting flu shot. For those people, it would be a different barrier. The barrier would be the underlying belief they have about the benefits and the cost of getting vaccinated.

• 17:05Speaker 01

  So once you recognize the potential difference in the barrier that are, the barriers that are faced by those two groups of people, you can send them different interventions. So for people who got vaccinated in the prior year, who presumably just need to be reminded, they just need to combat the present bias to not procrastinate. What we could do is to send them a reminder to make it a very top of their mind. And we could also make the process of scheduling appointments and getting vaccinated easier, right? So maybe we can bundle our intervention right before a doctor appointment they have. So before they get a doctor appointment, we just remind them, look, it's a flu season. Get vaccinated at your upcoming doctor appointments is easy and quick.

• 17:51Speaker 01

  So once people know there is an easy way to take the action and then it's a very ceiling at the top of mind for the upcoming doctor appointment, they may be able to get it down. On the other hand, for people who did not get a flu shot in prior year, whose minds needs to be shifted and persuaded, you cannot just use the intervention I described. And instead, you need to think about what can you do to convince them of the value of getting vaccinated. So it could be a very powerful informational video, or it could be a very well structured pamphlet with opportunity for people to do a send a text message to hospital and do an interactive Q and A.

• 18:34Speaker 01

  Like, all of that probably are more helpful for this subset of people. So in our paper, we did online experiments and the field experiments at a different scale. Like, one field experiment with a healthcare provider. And, and, and they provide some evidence suggesting this platform, no, sorry, suggesting this framework could be a useful approach for us to think about how to customize behavioral interventions. Yeah, so that is one lesson, yeah.

• 19:05Speaker 00

  Yeah, I'd imagine it's quite challenging to also understand what's exactly happening in people's minds. Like, in a sense that, yeah, they might,

• 19:16Speaker 00

  some subset of people might not have flu shots or other shots in their history. But then they also might have different reasons why they might not be getting, you know, any other sort of vaccine, right? Uh, do you usually, like, I'm just curious, try to hit as many points that people can be going through in their minds in some sort of information materials? Or maybe some questionnaires would be more useful? Like, did you find anything more effective or less effective to figure out, I guess, what's on people's minds?

• 19:48Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's a good question. I think there are a couple of things in this great comment. One is, I am obviously just separating people into two buckets. Depends on whether or not they're engaging something in the prior year, right? So that is the data I have in my study, so that's the one I'm able to leverage. But in reality, you could imagine having access to people's past records for a longer time. Period, which would allow you to separate people into different buckets even more precisely, right? So you could look at people who never get vaccinated versus people who got vaccinated periodically versus people who got vaccinated in like a long time ago and now they're not doing it versus people who consistently do it.

• 20:28Speaker 01

  And I suspect those different buckets of people would would differ from each other in a more nuanced way than the story I was telling you earlier. So so I I think with more granular data, you can shed lights and do some phenotype more precisely. But then the other thing is your point about what belief, actual fundamental difference in belief.

• 20:52Speaker 01

  I think then it it's super interesting to understand the underlying belief. But as a policymaker, if what you are trying to do, right, or as institution or as a healthcare provider, if all what you are trying to do is to influence people's behavior based on whatever you know about them, then you might have to accept the trade off. In in a sense, you would only have a very coarse proxy based on their behavior. You would have some coarse proxy for what might be a barrier. But understand, but you have to understand that this proxy is not perfect, right? So even if you look at people who did not get vaccinated in the past ten years, it doesn't necessarily mean that they do not evaluate, they they could just keep forgetting every year they procrastinate.

• 21:36Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 21:37Speaker 01

  And or maybe they're allergic to something that make them hesitant to try it, even though they believe COVID vaccine could be valuable. It's not like they have misperception or misbelief. It's just that there are some idiosyncratic reasons that we're not capturing here. I totally agree. But if your goal is to do a large scale intervention.

• 21:56Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 21:56Speaker 01

  You won't be able to know the underlying belief. That said, as a researcher, you can, of course, run surveys and then look at, based on your sample, within your sample, how would a people's self-reported behavioral history correlates with their beliefs, right? So you could imagine. I ran a survey with thousands of people that is national, in a nationally representative sample. And then I could ask people to self-report whether they get vaccinated in the past five years, say. Because it's going to be hard for them to remember what they did ten years ago. So let's say five years. And then I could also ask them a bunch of questions to understand how their belief about different aspects of getting vaccinated.

• 22:41Speaker 01

  A belief about sad effect, a belief about severity of the flu, the easiness of getting contact, getting the flu, and also their belief about the cost, right? Once we assess all of the aspects of the beliefs related to flu and the flu shot, we can connect it with people's self-reporting the behavioral history. That may give us some sense about how the consistency of getting vaccinated in the past correlates more precisely with different beliefs. And then that insight can be shared with policymakers. And then to the extent they are comfortable with extrapolating from my survey to the population they are trying to influence,

• 23:23Speaker 01

  they could also look at a people's behavioral history and then say, okay, based on this research, maybe people who get vaccine once a while tend to have this set of beliefs that we can target. So, so that's, that's another thing I will say, like, it's feasible, but it may have to be a separate process because it's harder for organizations to run survey among their population. So it might have to be a, a separate activity, right? Like you can collect that outline. The third thing I will say is, what I was trying to say? Yeah, the third thing I will say is, yes, I share an intuition that maybe the informational material can be more, one, more targeted, right, if you know people's underlying belief. And two, maybe it can be more comprehensive to capture

• 24:07Speaker 01

  possibly different types of misbeliefs people may have. Obviously, the trade-off is when you implement in the field, if your information intervention is too comprehensive, too long, then people may not engage, they may tune out as well. So it's a balance. In our study, we tried a two-minute, very engaging video right before the people's doctor appointments, which seems to have some traction. And because it comes at the right time, right time, meaning it's right before a doctor appointment, you may feel like it's something related to a doctor appointment, you're more willing to engage, you trust the health system. So finding the right time to target people maybe helpful. And a two-minute video is is is probably more engaging than having people

• 24:53Speaker 01

  read a plain text on brochure or pamphlet. And in fact, that is connected with another thing I will say, in the same paper, we did another field experiment with a national pharmacy chain involving three million people, which we consider as a very scaled test of the lessons we learned in a smaller scale experiment with a hospital. And then when we collaborated with the national pharmacy chain, we do not have the ability to send a video anymore. They don't want to embed the the video in the in the text message. And also, it would be crazy process to go through if we have to get a video verified and approved by the organization.

• 25:35Speaker 01

  So we just end up sending people a brief text message. The text message is a very, very condensed version of the two-minute video we created. It still hit on a few key insights, including the prevalence of the flu, the severity of the flu that people tend to underestimate. Because we did a survey early on, which tell, which suggests to us, in the US, people tend to underestimate how prevalent the flu is and how easy to contact, to get contacted, to get contracted with the flu, how severe the flu symptom can be. So this goes back to your point of actually understanding people's

• 26:16Speaker 01

  belief or misbelief, and then you write intervention to target at that. So we did make sure to include those elements in the brief text message. And we also know that people tend to underestimate how effective the flu shot is. So we made sure our text message also touch on that, just like our video did. However, it had no effect. Our

• 26:38Speaker 01

  Text message that contain those, strike those key points, like include those key points, has absolutely no effect, right? Because we have three million people, it's very well powered to detect even tiny effect. But even the tiny effect, we cannot detect. So the way, the one way to interpret this is, you have to be mindful when you translate an intervention that seems to work in one setting, and then like translate it to another setting. You have to be mindful about the loss in translation or the transferability of the knowledge. So in this case, when we transfer the knowledge from our earliest study to this like scaled up version, there are a few things that changed.

• 27:22Speaker 01

  Uh, one, the dose of the treatment, right? So we went from a two-minute video to a brief text message in total that adds up to something like three hundred twenty character, right? Mm-hmm. And then the other thing that changed is the context. We went from a very engaged context, like people who got messages right before their doctor appointment, like one to three days before their doctor appointment, presumably, it's a more credible source that they are willing to engage more with, so they are willing to watch the video. Versus it's a text message from a pharmacy, yes, you still have relationship with the pharmacy because you have got the medicine there presumably, for example.

• 28:03Speaker 01

  But it's not at the time that right before you are going to pick up your prescription, right? Like you don't feel the need to necessarily engage. So I think that context may lead us to be testing the idea in a more low-intention, low-engagement setting to begin with. So both of those differences across the studies may contribute to the lack of an, an effect of the information intervention in the scale of the test. And interestingly, in the same study, if we look at the basic effect of sending a reminder.

• 28:38Speaker 01

  The basic effect of sending reminder and including a link to directly schedule a vaccine appointment on the pharmacist's website, like that type of intervention still works. And that type of intervention works better on people who got flu shot in prior year than people who did not. So part of my my story still holds. For people who did not get flu shots, sorry, for people who got flu shot in prior year, the more useful thing to do is still to send them this reminder and then just help them to follow through on their existing tension. But it's just when we try to do the information intervention, it didn't have the additional impact.

• 29:17Speaker 01

  And so that suggests what different types of behavioral intervention may translate differently, right? So the reminder has effect across my studies, whereas the information intervention seems to be more sensitive to how you deliver it, where you deliver it. Yes, so so that's my long, that is my long spiel about the second lesson I want to share is when you take knowledge from the literature and when you implement it in your study, you want to be mindful of the design and how much it can translate in your sample, in your setting.

• 29:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, and I guess, you know, testing first before rolling out it to full scale probably would be a good idea with any intervention that organization can try or, yeah.

• 30:06Speaker 01

  Definitely.

• 30:07Speaker 00

  Policy maker. But yeah, it also makes me think about just a couple of things.

• 30:14Speaker 00

  Contacts in which people receive any message and how easy it is to take action then on that message. And and as you mentioned, like the right time, it seems to be like something that's coming up a lot in my work. Like it's one thing to, let's say, if somebody is trying to eat better, just send a message right before their meal. It's another one when they're like, you know, about to go to bed and by the time they wake up, they already forgot what to what you send them. Right? So I feel like.

• 30:42Speaker 00

  That is such an important, yeah, go ahead.

• 30:44Speaker 01

  Oh, sorry, go ahead. Yes, I just wanna say like, in the aesthetically, I agree with you. And there are more evidence suggesting that we should be mindful, not only just what we send people to whom, but also when, where we're sending them. And in fact, I will maybe give you two examples, like one is research done by Edward Chan and his co-authors. Sorry, I would say Edward Chan, Oliver Hauser and, uh, is Oliver Hauser? Let me double check. That would be embarrassing if, if we, if I say it wrong. Sorry, hold on. So yes, Oliver Hauser. Okay, so I will say, okay, so one example is research conducted by Edward Chan and Oliver Hauser.

• 31:25Speaker 01

  They have a paper published last year at Science, looking at how diversity training could more effective, how to design diversity training so it actually work. And one of the elements they tried is to put diversity training right before managers are going to make a hiring decision. So instead of having people do the diversity training once a year and then forget about it, they have, yeah, managers do the diversity training, it's a short one, before they're going to create a shortlist for their position. And that is very much in, in line with your proposal. It should be a very timely intervention, right? So that's one example. The other is research done by Craig Fox at U C A Anderson and Megan Weber,

• 32:10Speaker 01

  who is currently PhD student at Anderson. They also find some fascinating evidence in line with this idea of leveraging, meet people where they are. Send them the intervention where their attention is likely to be the highest. So basically, they collaborated with a website that runs, so like, on, on our website, it's basically, I think you would, uh, what did I do? Oh, yeah, so it's kind of like the website where you would donate some money in, in, in exchange for the opportunity to have some fun activity, like meet a very popular celebrity, right? So it's kind of like the, the celebrity is willing to volunteer their time. But then the fans would have to donate and then exchange for chances to meet with the celebrity.

• 32:54Speaker 01

  And so they varied when people are contacted to register, to become a register, uh, how to say?

• 33:04Speaker 01

  Oh, to register to vote in the US.

• 33:06Speaker 00

  Mm hmm.

• 33:06Speaker 01

  Right. Okay, so maybe I will say it again. Okay, so basically, they collaborate. So Craig Fox and Meghan Meghan Weber collaborated with a platform where people can donate money in exchange for chances to engage in some very fun events, such as meeting with a celebrity. And after people just donated, they Craig and Meghan sent people text message to, actually, it's not text message. I would correct myself because that's an interesting point. I will come back later. They actually have the the app on the website. Immediately have a pop up that ask people to become a registered voter, right? So to complete their registration in 2024.

• 33:50Speaker 01

  And they find that the timing really matter. If you catch people's attention right after they finish the donation, before they left the platform, people are much, much more likely to finish the registration than if you send them a text message right after they complete the registration. So it's like just a couple of minutes difference. So one is immediately pop up on the screen while you are about to leave versus after you leave, one minute later, I send you a text message. And then the text message leads to, my recollection is like close to zero percent engagement. Whereas on the platform, people are much more likely to register as a result of getting that pop up reminder.

• 34:35Speaker 01

  So I think that's that's a way to say it's it's you have to meet people when they are most likely to pay attention to this material you send them. Yeah.

• 34:46Speaker 00

  Yeah, and I guess also it's this saying that there is less friction, so to speak.

• 34:53Speaker 01

  Exactly, that's true.

• 34:54Speaker 00

  I think people are in general very. Lazy for the things they don't care that much about, especially if it's somebody else asking them to do something. And so if it's out of the context, it seems like it's right there, but for the person, it's like, I don't know, they're already doing something else. And they don't wanna be doing some extra effort to get back to doing this thing that they might not even care that much about. Yeah, so it's such a great, I guess, insight for people to just grasp this idea. And whenever, like, we sometimes get mad at ourselves so that we don't do certain things, it's like, well, did you make it like really, really easy, right, for yourself?

• 35:32Speaker 00

  Whether that's doing some donation, voting, you know, eating better or exercising, like, it works when you put your shoes right by your bed. Or, I explained.

• 35:42Speaker 01

  Definitely.

• 35:44Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 35:45Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 35:47Speaker 00

  Such a great insight.

• 35:49Speaker 01

  Yeah, I, I, I definitely agree with that insight. You're, you're spot on. I like your example, like, it, it's, it's a, it's a tool we can leverage to influence ourselves, right? If you just make things easy for yourself, and then that would reduce the friction. And similarly, organization can try to reduce, reduce this type of friction. And in, in one of my research paper with Suvar Sakkado, we actually find that, we have some such as evidence in the COVID nineteen context, where like you vary how easy it is for people to even make appointment for the vaccine could make a difference. So in our two experimental conditions, like in one condition, we include a link to CVS.

• 36:32Speaker 01

  So people can just click the link and schedule appointment at CVS. In another condition, we people, we give people a broad link. The broad link would take people to vaccine.gov, where they can put their zip code and then find a list of pharmacists close to them, right? So economists would say probably the second one is better because it give you a variety of choices. You can choose your preferred brand, location, give you more flexibility. But if we think about your point related to friction, then the broader link actually adds more friction. Because now you have to spend, or it adds some cognitive burden. Because now you have to think, okay, which one do I go to? Oh, yeah, this one is close to me. I will go this one. Oh, yeah.

• 37:18Speaker 01

  Well, but that day I'm not actually at a home. So, okay, that's not the right address to enter. So it add more burden for selecting the right location and as cost. And and and we find that actually the first link that directs people to only just one pharmacy. It's like just CVS, just go ahead, just book it. Don't think too much about it. Leads to higher vaccine take up than sending people the broad link. And I think that's also a way to think about the friction from a more cognitive perspective.

• 37:50Speaker 00

  Yeah. And that also reminds me, I don't know if you did any work or research on that. But very often, I I I work with teams in companies and organizations and they would say, well, we create this algorithm or like we tell people what to do and they know what to do, like use this new software or use this new system, right, or or a process. But they just don't do that. It's like, why they, you know, they are motivated, they're smart, etc. And very often, when you start looking into the process, there is like, you know, a few more clicks away from what they usually do. And that's it, right? People are just like, well, I already have to do all of these things when I'm at work. Like now I have to also click through all of these things to find the thing.

• 38:34Speaker 01

  Such a great example. I feel like every example you give, I have something from my own research that can support. You are absolutely right, right? So one, in in one of the recent experiments, my team and and my collaborators and I did at UCLA Health speak exactly to that point. So so basically, UCLA Health is doing a initiative that targets at a people when after their birthday and encourage them to come to complete the preventive care activities, such as like cancer screenings and annual physicals, right? And then they send out an email to all the patients who are eligible every month. And then the email will direct people to a patient portal, right?

• 39:18Speaker 01

  So people go to the patient portal and then presumably they should read the letter created by UCLA Health that details the different things you are due for, the steps you should take, okay? So what's the default setting? UCLA's electronic communication system has is once you click on the link to go to the patient portal, you will actually go to the homepage, that is the landing page. You don't directly go to the letter. So what our team think, our team thought, wait, if you go to the homepage, the patient still have to go a few clicks to find that letter. Wouldn't that be easier if we just show people the letter as the first thing they see if they log in? So that's exactly what we pitched. And then

• 40:03Speaker 01

  we, we actually assign people into two conditions. Either they will get the status quo pathway or they will get the simplified pathway. And then we find that one, the simplified pathway increased people's likelihood of reading the letter. And then two, it also increases people's likelihood of completing the subsequent action. That is to actually getting the screening six months later. So it's to us, it's like such a simple change that leads to a, a meaningful effect in a clinically relevant and impactful behavior. And what is quite interesting is we asked early on multiple IT folks, we asked them like, is that possible to change the pathway? They were like, no, no, no, this is, this is the, the fixed pathway.

• 40:48Speaker 01

  Like no way, you just have to go to the landing page. And so we're lucky enough to find one specialist who said, yeah, of course, let's try it. So sometimes you see this inertia in organization where it's a default for so long that not only people never thought about it to change it, but also when you propose the idea to them, their first reaction is it's not possible to change. But we're lucky to finally find someone to change it and to showcase the value of simplify this seemingly trivia.

• 41:23Speaker 01

  Logistics process, right? Like, the barrier seems trivial. You just need to go from landing page to the communication center, find a letter. But that is sufficient to deter some people from taking up the subsequently valuable action.

• 41:37Speaker 00

  Yeah, especially, you know, taking into account that most people are these days distracted and they are not really might be native to this website. And like, should I go this or that or here or there, right? And all this like thinking process on top of what they already doing. So I guess what I'm, you know, hearing also from what you just said, whenever a leader or somebody else tries to change behavior at work of people, let's say, even, you know, things like AI adoption, etc. You really wanna think about, like, what's the friction? What, how can I make it super, super easy to do this thing? Right? Instead of hoping that people will get it, think, and will be motivated enough to actually do that change.

• 42:22Speaker 01

  Totally. Yeah, I one hundred percent resident. I'm just thinking, in my own case, like, I want to consume more news and a good time to do it is when I'm dropping off kids and driving back. But now talking to you, I realize my podcast, the app is actually on a second page on my phone, is actually hidden. And I have to go into category of news category and then click on it. And often as a result, I just forgot to do it. I already start driving, I was like, oh, now it's too hard for me to actually go to the second page and then click on the right button. Now you remind me, I should have put it on the first page, since that's my goal to consume news in the morning. I could actually leverage this for myself. Yeah, thanks for the inspiration.

• 43:07Speaker 00

  Yes, I always just remind myself of that, that whenever I say, start skipping student behavior, it can be not maybe submitting student information either to my client sometimes or to like my tax person, right? And it's very often this like friction, I don't know, a wrong email tab or like the processes I have to click to links or something like that, right? Or it's just the, or there is no reminder, it's sort of like simple things like that. It's not like I'm a different person, it's just like, don't always have this like simplicity of following through on my intention. So the, yes, thank you for that.

• 43:48Speaker 00

  I also remember reading in your work that you study a lot. A short term and long term motivation and what can affect people. Yes, people's motivation, so they don't just think about short term things, but also think about long term. Like, what is maybe the most important knowledge or insights that you got in in this area? Like, we all want to get some benefit things now and pleasure now, but we also gotta do those long term things. The, no, not long term things, but behaviors that contribute to long term benefit, whether that's exercise, whether that's, again, submitting taxes or working on the, or savings, right?

• 44:33Speaker 00

  What did you find perhaps that affect that part of our brain? How do we become more long term doers, uh, not just going after short term gratification?

• 44:44Speaker 01

  Right, I think, I think, and some of my research early on speak to that. And my research about the first start effect. Well, now it's already February, so it doesn't feel as timely as, as, as if we talk about this in January. So the first start effect that I've worked on. Uh, it's initially in collaboration with Katie Milkman, Maya Deviser, and Jason Race. We find that people are more likely to pursue their long term goals, to pursue their aspiration at a certain points that mark the beginning of new time period. So, for example, at the beginning of the year, the new year resolution, everyone know about that. But we also documents other time periods, such as the beginning of the week,

• 45:25Speaker 01

  the beginning of the month, the beginning of a new season, or for students, the beginning of a school year, and also after people's birthdays. So those time periods are what we call first starts, because those signal the start of a new time period that make people feel psychologically disconnected from the past period, right? And then that give people a burst in motivation. And we looked at this by examining when people are more likely to search for the term diet on Google, when people are more likely to go to the gym, when people are more likely to create a goal commitment contract online for other people to monitor their progress, to hold themselves accountable, right? So for all of those activities, we find that people are more likely to.

• 46:09Speaker 01

  Engage at the various points I I mentioned. And also in our subsequent study, we find it's not just about those calendar events, right? So there are also some personal events that would mark the beginning of a new time period. Birthdays, one example, especially some milestone birthdays. Wrong number birthday, or in Chinese culture, twelve, twenty-four, thirty-six, those birthdays are culturally meaningful. And they tend to be more motivating than the regular birthday. We also find things like moving to a new city, or even moving, the first time moving to an office, right? So those events also help make people feel refreshed, make them feel I'm no longer the old self.

• 46:52Speaker 01

  Who is late, who does not go to bed early, who bite the nails. I know, that was that was silly example I gave Katie when I was a PhD working on a project. I said, I will quit this, I need to quit this, that was my goal. Okay, maybe we don't have to mention that in the podcast, but never mind, just to share a little bit of it to you. But anyway, ah, so, okay, so what did I say? Then I got confused, okay, what I say, what I was trying to say is, oh, yes, okay, fresh start, yes. So those time periods also, right, mark the beginning of new chapter individually. And that make you feel you are no longer the old self who has some bad habits, you want to quit. Or who has failed to achieve a goal that you want to pursue again.

• 47:36Speaker 01

  So the separation between the old self that has imperfection and the new self that is more competent. Is psychologically contribute to to the fresh start effect. And we looked at how we can leverage the fresh start effect to get people do some beneficial activity in the long term. So we collaborated with four universities in the US. We send mails to employees who are undersaving in the university sponsored retirement savings program.

• 48:07Speaker 01

  And we varied the framing of the mail. In one condition, we tell people, okay, how about sign up either now? Or if you prefer, you can sign up like in five months, right? So we try to give people a potential delay. Because we know people may not want to increase their savings now and sign up for the program now. But they would feel more comfortable doing it later. But in another condition, we varied how we described the delay. Instead of saying in five months, we said after your next birthday. And we made sure the next birthday correspond to a five months delay, right? So we hold the objective time the same, but we vary whether or not people are reminded of upcoming milestone, such as the birthday.

• 48:52Speaker 01

  And we find that leveraging this framing, this fresh start framing for New Year and for the first day of spring, spring equinox, actually make people more likely to sign up and increase their retirement saving rates relative to describing the same delay using the objective time lap.

• 49:14Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 49:15Speaker 01

  Yeah, so that's one way to get people pay attention to fresh start. And this is a tool managers can use. And at the first start moment, people are more likely to not only experience this separation from the past itself, but also have a more big picture view, right? Because those are the moments, it's the beginning of a new time period that prompt people to take stock of where they are, what they care about. And that could also be a mechanism that contributes to the increased attention to long term goals.

• 49:48Speaker 00

  Yes, and in general, you know, besides the fresh start, the fact that, you know, we can leverage in many different ways. It can be even like, you know, well, that's the beginning of the afternoon. At least I, you know, sometimes talk to myself like that. Well, I'm not feeling, you know, great about that. But you know, it's the, it's like the first part of the day is finished. And now it's the second part and I can have my fresh start and the second chance, so to speak, right?

• 50:14Speaker 00

  Besides that, you know, like you're using it and leveraging it many different ways to get yourself think about long term and maybe work a little bit harder on your long term. What are some other maybe insights have you studied or know of that help people think more long term? And contribute to benefit of the future self, not just the pleasure of present self?

• 50:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think that's, that's, yeah, that's interesting. I was like, well, most of my work are either about fresh start or about behavior change.

• 50:48Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 50:49Speaker 01

  I'm trying to think whether there are more.

• 50:51Speaker 00

  Well, it's, that's, you know, not, not in your exactly like expertise and don't, don't forget about that, you know? Another question that I really wanted to ask you about was, what from your knowledge, your experience, can you recommend to people leading teams? Or maybe organizational change, like what can they leverage to help people change their behavior easier? And so to speak, stickier, so that the change actually lasts. Like, what are, what do you know of that managers and leaders can leverage from behavioral science? To make this the change and transition easier and more lasting?

• 51:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm, I'm trying to think what can I share beyond what we already talked about? Let me think, because I feel more comfortable drawing from my own research rather than just like broadly speculating. Okay, so, right, so, so what, usually I got interviewed more directly about the fresh start effect. So if you don't mind, I probably was still tied with the fresh start effect.

• 51:59Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah.

• 51:59Speaker 01

  About organizational change, yeah. So, so I think one, okay, so one, one idea I would recommend organizational leaders to think about is the timing of the change, right? So if the timing of the change is resonant with the start of a cycle, like it's a physical cycle. And then the start of the cycle would give people a sense of freshness that make them more open to change. Now I think the change may be more receptive, at least based on my own research at the beginning of a new time period. People seem to be more open to self-improvement efforts. And I think the same logic may apply to organizational initiatives that are designed to to be self-improvement for the team,

• 52:41Speaker 01

  for the organization, and people may just be more open to embark on such an initiative. So one thing I would highlight is think about the timing. Can it be for individual employees? Can it be maybe the beginning of a new, like right after their work anniversary? So you say, congratulations, this is your 10th year, you're starting your 10th year. This is what we would encourage you to consider, right? Or a new fiscal, at the start of a new fiscal quarter, rather than trying to do things in the middle of the month, in the middle of the week, in the middle of the year. Try to leverage those moments that could better resonate with people as well as change. So I think that's one lesson that I would like to share. And the other thing I would like to share is I I think the some sense of social accountability.

• 53:26Speaker 01

  In some recent research has some empirical evidence suggesting when you have individuals pursue a goal, instead of having them just do it with themselves, finding a buddy and then have them hold each other accountable, right? So like say, the company really want employees to learn some new AI tools. And then it's required training, require you go back home and still learn. And then try to leverage the social accountability, have people as buddies to checking each other's process. That may be more fun than having people do it themselves. And so one research evidence come from a research paper led by Rachel Rachel Gershon at UC Berkeley.

• 54:08Speaker 01

  She find that if you incentivize people to go to the gym, it is helpful, but it's more helpful if you tell people. If you go to the gym with your friends, you will get this reward. So in both case, people get the same um amount of dollar. But in a friend's condition, it's actually harder to get the reward because you have to also bring your friends. But they find that actually this type of incentive make people more likely to exercise. Than the easier incentive that only require yourself to show up in the gym. And one reason I think is, well, it's more fun for you to bring people to the gym. But then also it's created this accountability, right? So I think that's that's my insights that I think we can also apply in a work setting.

• 54:51Speaker 01

  When you want people to learn new skills, can you create a social context where people hold each other accountable? And and I think the other thing that I will borrow from Professor Ayellet Fishbacher's research is often you want to think about the fun aspect of the activity you want people to do. So rather than instead of thinking about this, this is an exercise. There are long term benefits that I don't know when will be realized. Instead, you think what is the fun part of doing this that I can experience right away? Is that the the fun of just being able to lift something heavier than what I did before? It's fun to learn a new movement. So like because the fun aspect can be experienced right away.

• 55:36Speaker 01

  So to become a very immediate reward that you can experience and create a positive reinforcement. So I think going back to your question about when organization want to in in in encourage a certain activity that have a long term benefits but not find the short term. I would say let's let's reframe this, right? Let's think whether there is any elements that they are exploring in the short term that can be framed as fun, as exciting. So people don't think I'm just doing this for uncertain benefits. I don't know, I don't know when would occur. But rather I'm just doing it for the sake of even just for the sake of doing it now and enjoying that exciting element. It's sufficient as a reason to give a try. I think that's that's another thing I would highlight.

• 56:21Speaker 00

  No, that's this is such a great insight and very often, you know, what I why I love, what I love about human psychology, it's so actually easy to reframe think, things when we try to do so, like when we want to find fun in something and frame it as fun, we'll actually are quite capable of that, right?

• 56:40Speaker 01

  Right.

• 56:41Speaker 00

  So I find that's actually the easiest hack to human motivation is just learning the, this art and science of reframing things in a way that suits the ultimate goal that you're trying to achieve for.

• 56:54Speaker 01

  Definitely. Yeah. Yeah, so vision, of course, is important, right? Telling people vision, giving them compelling story of why in the future would make organizational better. But then at the same time, to your point, like the day to day, details can be daunting in terms of what you have to accomplish, the change you have to make at a day to day level. So that persistence requires a different framing. So it feels it's complementary, like you have a vision to people buying the long term goal, but for the daily changes, you do need something more like what's the short term pleasure?

• 57:27Speaker 00

  Yeah. Short term pleasure and what you mentioned already, you know, different ways to make the friction less, different ways to remind people of things. So yeah, obviously, you know, the timing of things gotta be right, the context of things, we gotta think about that and also people's prior history like as much as possible. Think of that as well, day to day. If I were to sum up what I learned today from you.

• 57:54Speaker 01

  Yes, definitely. And I think this you you tied our earlier conversation very nicely into this broader question, right? So I think earlier I was giving example about, let's say if we want to do intervention at the individual level, right? Just to get them to do something that helps them themselves. But I think the same lesson apply when you think about driving organizational change and getting people to engage in activity that help organization. I think another thing I will add is also just a little bit more about the context. I think when organizations implement an intervention. Okay, now I, yeah, there's one more thing from my research, I feel very comfortable talking about it, I totally forgot about. Okay, yes, I think also when organization introducing a change, right? It's a new initiative, a new strategy.

• 58:39Speaker 01

  They have to be mindful about the signal they are sending to people in terms of how manager, how much managers are really committed to this change. So for example, in my research, look at electronic monitoring. I find that in hospitals that implemented electronic monitoring of individual healthcare workers' hand hygiene behavior. We do see an increase in hand hygiene compliance as a result of monitoring, right? Not surprisingly, if you monitor individuals, that could make them feel more accountable, they're more likely to wash their hands. But what is very interesting is when those hospitals removed electronic monitoring, when they are no longer monitoring individuals' hand hygiene behavior.

• 59:22Speaker 01

  We see an immediate drop and it leads to a hand hygiene compliance level that is even lower than the pre-improvementation, the pre-monitoring level. Okay, so why might explain that? One explanation could be a crowd out. In the sense like in the past, I washed my hands because as a doctor, I realized it's important to wash my hands to protect myself, protect, more importantly, protect my patients. Now you are monitoring me, you crowd out my original intrinsic motivation for washing my hands. Because now I'm just like, I'm washing my hands because the boss is watching. And then you take away the monitoring, so you take away this intrinsic motivation without

• 1:00:07Speaker 01

  adding back my intrinsic motivation. So we see a drop in hand hygiene compliance to be even worse than before. And this is related to my point about managerial commitment. Because you implement the monitoring for a bit, you experiment with this, and then you take it away without explaining to people why you take it away. In our setting, it's actually because of funding reason, those hospitals no longer have grants to support the monitoring program, so they remove it. But for people, it may feel a lack of managerial commitment to hand hygiene compliance. They're like, wait, they monitoring me for a while, now they remove it, we don't know why they remove it. And it's probably they're not serious enough. Yeah, it's a funding issue, but if they really care about this, I bet they're gonna find money for it.

• 1:00:52Speaker 01

  So the fact that they cannot put together resources, continue the program suggests they don't care this as much as we thought. So why should we care, right? So we want to think how, think about when you experiment with different changes. Every experimentation doesn't come.

• 1:01:11Speaker 01

  In a social vacuum, and instead, the experimentation come within a social context with some signal sent about intention of the manager. And that may not be the actual intention of the manager, but people make inferences, right? The fact that you remove it to make people draw some inferences about how much you care about it. Even though the manager may think I truly care, I just don't have the resource anymore. So I think that's another thing I would recommend the managers to be mindful of is the signal they send with how they implement as well as remove any initiative.

• 1:01:47Speaker 00

  Yeah, and maybe I listen from here also learn how to communicate well. So people don't guess and create their own stories, but instead you give them some story to to think of when implementing all of these changes, so they have less chance of backfiring. Yeah, such an important, you know, aspect, because a lot of like, I also work with managers and they would say, well, we did this, that, and like, but did you communicate that? And like, no, but it's obvious. I'm like, obvious to who, right? We all have our own stories in our hands, in our heads. So yeah, thank you so much for sharing this, Heng Chen. And I think on this note, we can maybe wrap up the podcast. Is there anything that you would like to the overall message?

• 1:02:32Speaker 00

  Maybe something to our listeners to take away, to think about, to be more effective in this behavior change, thinking more long term, doing and influencing different initiatives for the betterment of people? Yeah, anything.

• 1:02:48Speaker 01

  Yeah, that's a, that's a great, great, great question. But before we get there, I do want to quickly just say, I, I don't, I, I, I, it's only a working paper, so I don't think it's necessary, necessary you have to include in podcasts. But I just want to echo, I really like your point about the illusion of transparency, like managers think they're already out and clear about the changes they have made. For example, in response to employees' voice. But employees like, wait, what, what did you really change? Because we have voiced our concern, like how, you said you listened to us, but what did you do that demonstrated to listen to us? That is actually example from my own research in the project at U C V Health where. Like the quality improvement team made changes to their physician incentive program

• 1:03:32Speaker 01

  in response to physician's suggestion. But when you survey physicians, physicians keep saying like, my voice is not, was not heard. And I like, I don't even know why I'm feeling this survey. I bet nobody would read what I wrote, right? So like, people don't think their voice has been heard. While the quality improvement team feel like, we did a lot of changes. Every year, we, we do changes to the incentive program because we heard from you guys. So we actually tried experiments where we either made a change without communicating to people what the changes are, or we made it a change and we also told physicians, look, those different changes are made in response to physicians' feedback from which survey, in which year. We make it very concrete and verifiable.

• 1:04:16Speaker 01

  And we find that when you communicate the change to people, people express more positive attitudes towards the program. They're more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. That is, they're more willing to volunteer their time to help improve the initiative. So I think this goes back to a point about when organization implemented initiative, what to keep in mind, the transparency in communication is important, your intention, and also if you have done something to improve because your employees ask for it, make sure, let them know, rather than assuming, yeah, they already know what you have done for them.

• 1:04:51Speaker 00

  Yeah, people forget, I always, you know, remind myself of that when I forget a thing. Like, everybody forgets and you and your initiative and whatever you're doing is not top of people's mind. And unless you tell it many times, it's not going to be noticed or remembered. So, yeah.

• 1:05:07Speaker 01

  That's true.

• 1:05:08Speaker 00

  Thank you for sharing this.

• 1:05:09Speaker 01

  Of course, yeah. In terms of the overall lesson, maybe one thing I will say is, I encourage people to experiment. Experiment with themselves, experiment with their teams, with their organizations. It doesn't have to be a very formal experiment, but I think the spirit of trying out different tools from the scientific research and the tools they have learned from Angela's podcast. And then actually documents, right? Document the progress and compare notes. Is a helpful way to learn and and obviously this type of experiment is not going to be perfect if you do not actually have a control condition. But I think it's going to be better than not keeping track of the different things you have

• 1:05:53Speaker 01

  tried at a different time and then the outcome. I think there is a lot you can learn by this self experimentation.

• 1:06:00Speaker 00

  Yes, one hundred percent. Thank you for for saying this because yes, indeed, in order to grow, in order to develop, in order to improve, we need to try different things and we need to keep a tracker to understand, you know, whether that's working better, not working, what to try next, so we could all improve and grow and do better. So thank you so much, Heng Chen. And the last but not least, where do people go to maybe learn more about your work, connect with you, ask a question? What are some best places?

• 1:06:29Speaker 01

  Wonderful, yeah, I I think my website, www.hengchendai.com is to go to place where I update regularly my research, the media interviews I received or articles, news articles that feature my research, they are all linked on that website and also feel free to send me an email at hengchen.dai@uc. Sorry, that's okay. Also feel free to send me email at hengchen.dai@anderson.

• 1:06:58Speaker 00

  Yeah, we'll link that so.

• 1:06:59Speaker 01

  Oh, you want to download it? Never mind, so then don't worry about it and feel free to just email me if you want to chat about organizational contacts and and any challenging you have that I may be able to help with.

• 1:07:11Speaker 00

  Yes, highly recommend everyone to reach out who wants to get better and introducing changes that work or run better experiments. And Heng Chen, thank you so much again for your time, really appreciate it and yeah, wishing you all the best with further research, so we all learn from you to get even better at changing our behavior.

• 1:07:33Speaker 01

  Thank you so much for having me, Angela. This is a wonderful opportunity to share my research with your audience.

• 1:07:39Speaker 00

  Thank you.