 Welcome back from lunch. I hope I don't induce a food coma. I hope you guys keep your energy up. And I'm excited to be here. This is my second time. I got to speak in teacher workshop here four years ago, so I feel very privileged that Bruno had me back. And what I want to be speaking about today is us as designers, and I'm going to use that broadly and inclusively, whether you're a product manager, a marketer, but practitioners who are delivering products and services. So us as designers, understanding our role as designers relative to understanding behavior and what it means to potentially influence behavior as we deliver products and services. And specifically why it's more important now than ever because of what consumers or users or the people that use our products and services and what they're expecting of us. I'm going to start with a story, well a scenario because it's a made up story, where I want us to think about going back to 2004. And in 2004, think a little bit about what things were like back then as far as like connectivity and phones and stuff like that. I mean I'm hoping some of you are young enough, maybe you don't remember a lot about 2004, but that makes me feel old, but I remember it. And so in this scenario, imagine that you're in an airport layover, maybe you have two or three hours between flights and so you have some time to kill. And so in doing so you go to the bar to kill some time, have a beer, maybe a glass of wine. And usually these bars have sport or news on them and in this case unfortunately it does have some breaking news. It has the news in 2004 of the Indian Ocean earthquake and the resulting tsunami that hit Indonesia. And you see the story unfold and it's really tragic, right? There's devastation, there's massive loss of life, you see 10,000 lives lost and a little bit later they say it's estimated at 30,000, it's estimated at 80,000 and it goes up. And it's horrifying and your heart goes out to these people in this area. And on the news they say, well if you can do anything, donate to the Red Cross. Any way you feel like you can help, donate to the Red Cross. So in 2004 you have to think about it, well that sounds like a good idea. I'd like to feel like I'm contributing in some way. And so what do I have to do if I want to donate to the Red Cross? Well first I had to have been prompted, yeah, I should donate to the Red Cross, that sounds like a good idea. And then I have to remember it. I have to say okay, when I get a chance, and when I get back home I'll donate to the Red Cross. So then time passes and you know, you've got on your flight, you get home, or you get wherever you were going, you open your mail, you walk your dog, and then you have to remember, maybe you turned on the TV, maybe you realized, oh this story is still breaking, I remember, I actually wanted to do something about it. And then you have to go online, go to your desktop or your laptop website, and from there you have to basically enter what is effectively like an e-commerce funnel, right? You have to give your billing details, right? The transaction actually has to occur. And then there's actually the most difficult part of the decision is how much should I donate? Maybe I should donate like 100 euros, right? No, that's actually kind of a lot of money. So how about 10 or 20? Is it even worth donating 10 or 20? Because that's not actually going to make a difference. We struggle with this. And so there's a lot of people who might have been prompted to donate to the Red Cross. And just like any sort of funnel, e-commerce funnel, sales funnel, there's all these drop-off points because time and friction get in the way. And so only a small portion of the people who maybe had this intent to donate, donate. So let's now fast forward a little bit to 2010. And in 2010 we're going to have the same scenario, right? We're going to have our layover, we're going to go to the airport bar, and when it's on, unfortunately, we're seeing another tragic story unfold. In this case, in 2010, it was the Haitian earthquake. And I know in the U.S. it was really hard to watch because we're very geographically close to Haiti, and so it reached out. A lot of people knew Haitian immigrants, and so they were two or three degrees away from thinking about that empathy you have. And so you see this unfold, and again, it's tragic. You see the devastation. You see people being pulled out of rubble. There's lots of chaos, and there's a death toll. And again, it's like, well, if you can do anything, donate to the Red Cross. It's the best thing you can do to help, you know, staff up the resources that are going to aid these people. So you're like, all right, I want to donate to the Red Cross. And I don't know if there's an international equivalent, or equivalent in different areas, but in the U.S. we have this new service. It's not new now. It started around 2009-2010. And it's the ability to text 90999 from your phone. And if you do that, and you type Haiti in this case, or whatever thing you want to donate to specifically for the Red Cross, you do that, and it'll withdraw $10 from your next mobile bill. And so you withdraw that $10. You might even have your mobile phone bill on autopay, so you might not even notice that $10. You confirm it, it confirms it, and you're done. So you saw that this is something you wanted to do, and you acted when you were most motivated to act. And you didn't have to think about the money. If you donated, if you did this, you did $10, if you did this, you $10, I don't feel like I'm cheap, or anything like that. I feel like everyone else is doing their part just by the act of doing it, not really based on how much you're doing it by. And this has some pretty impactful results. So a survey done after a few years of this ability to donate by text by SMS showed that $43 million was raised for Haiti relief. Now, the next two bullets are the telling ones. One is that most of these donations were made on impulse, which means they saw some stimulus like on a television or something, and then it was like, oh, I need to act now, so I'm gonna act now. And then their interest in Haiti tended to wane after they donated, right? Probably because it's like, I mean, I can't take it. I don't want to watch this stuff anymore because it's hard to watch. And so I feel like I've done my part, and I can kind of move on. And so those last two things show that if they weren't able to donate at that moment, they likely wouldn't have donated at all, which means most of that money is new money. It's money that they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. It's on top of the money that they would have got from people who donated by phone or donated by online or donated by other methods. And then from thinking about this from future behaviors, over half of the donors have made text message contributions to other disaster relief efforts. For example, the nuclear reactor events that happened in Japan a few years ago. So they show this can be new money coming in and it can be sustainable money coming in. And that isn't necessarily designers designing a system. It was a company that created this protocol. But if you think about our ability to influence behavior in this way and able to augment people's ability to do something when they most want to do it, and I tend to use as an analogy when we think about our roles as designers in this, is documentary filmmaking. So the turn of the century, first filmmakers, people who had movie cameras would just set up the movie camera and show that you can film people moving, like walking out of factories and walking out of churches. That's a lot of the early footage you'd see. And then they realize, well, what we can do is there's this form of entertainment we already have, these scripted plays, stage plays. So we can create fictional movies by just filming stage plays. And that's a silent film era. It was only a little bit later that we realized what we can do is we can create a narrative out of real life, not just a stage play. And so that was often referred to as a very objective, like life as it is, or a factual film which is dramatic. And now we've become pretty savvy in the last century of knowing even documentary filmmaking isn't necessarily objective. It's where the director chooses to point the camera, how they choose to edit it, if they choose to put music to it, how they choose to frame it, is they're going to tell a story in half an hour or they're going to tell a story in two hours, they're going to tell a story in eight hours. All that stuff influences how we perceive, receive and perceive that story. It's not really objective. They might have an intent to be objective, they might have an intent to influence and talk about a point of view, but at some level on a spectrum it's not objective. And I want us to reflect as designers of the fact that every decision we make as a designer influences the user. And even if we really have a good intent to be as objective as possible. And I would say in the simplest form we might think of things like smart defaults. So when you design a form and you make certain defaults in there to help people go through it, well, this is the thing you most likely do or this is the thing that pertains to you most. So here's the default. You can change it if you want to, but this is designed to reduce the friction. So the thing you wanted to do, which is get through the form or get past the form to something else, you can do. Well, you've, like a documentary filmmaker, you've made a certain choice. You've architected the solution in a way that influences their decision making. Maybe they don't even look what the other options are that might pertain to them. And that's okay, you know, right? We're hoping that this is seen as a strong usability case and that people will get to what they need to do, which is get through the form. I want us to reflect that is still every decision influences a user, however explicit your intent is. So if you look into behavior science and you ask the experts sort of the best way to change behavior, they'll tell you the best way to change your behavior is by changing the environment, right? If you change the environment, you've changed the behavior. I know this from work because if there is a soda in the fridge, I'm going to drink the soda. If there's no soda in the fridge, I'm not going to drink the soda. I keep winnishing they would put no soda in the fridge. But the quintessential example of this is from behavioral economics is often the idea of rearranging the cafeteria, right? You're a large company of thousands of employees and you want your employees to make better dietary decisions. Or at the very least what you do is you care about their physical well-being, right? And so the typical case from Nudge Theory or behavioral economics is you rearrange the cafeteria. You give them the same choices, but you rearchitect how those choices are given. You give labels so they can see the calorie difference between something that might be less ideal for you and something that's better for you. Or they put some of the sweets in a more hard-to-reach get place or in the back and they put some of the healthier stuff in an easy-to-reach to kind of prey on people who are just making a quick decision because I'm making a quick lunch so whatever is easiest. So they're kind of leveraging that. And like a documentary filmmaker, they're editing this thing in a way to influence people. Even though all the facts are there, they've made all the choices there. And you can see this in other ways. So a financial advisor might tell you to put your credit card in a block of ice, right? You've physically changed the environment because the card won't be with you on impulse when you want to use it. You have to go and ship it out of the way. So the environment, which is in this case your person when you're out and about, has changed, right? Just like the soda in the fridge. The environment has changed and so my behavior has changed. So they call that in behavioral economics choice architecture, right? And so the idea that you're organizing the context in which people make decisions. I think that as designers we've been already doing this. Kind of just like documentary filmmakers have been doing this in which we have to be cognizant of it. We think about interaction design. We think about information architecture. We're structuring hierarchies. We're framing content and we're creating defaults and we're influencing behavior. But influencing behavior of the environment is hard, right? Sometimes you might work for a consultancy and some company might have you say, why don't you apply behavior design or some other type of design thinking and help us give our audience, like our constituents, like our employees, a different cafeteria. But a lot of you guys are more like UX designers, product designers, people that are creating apps and products and services that scale to thousands and maybe even millions of people. So changing the environment is the most effective way to change behavior, but we often live in a world meaning the products and services we put out in the world where we have little control over the behavior. If we want to change the environment through an app of people's dietary decisions, we can't rearrange their cafeteria. We can't rearrange their kitchen. So part of us thinking about what our role is as a designer is understanding, at what level are we able to influence behavior? In what way are we thinking about behavior change? What is our material to work with? Well, we can influence how people perceive the environment, what we use framing as a tool to rethink something and put it in a different light. We can rethink how people perceive or navigate the environment. And that could be literally or figuratively. It might be let's navigate the steps to healthier you by taking these prescriptive steps. That might be like Weight Watchers. You basically have navigated your health environment by having prescribed the steps you need to take. You will go to these meetings, you will count these calories or you will eat these meals. Or it could be more like augmented reality. We could help you literally navigate a path that might be helping you get to whatever outcome you want. And we can influence the way people interact with the environment. So we can rethink that. We have interaction models in our pocket with the phone. So this is the level we're working at. So the nature of our products are starting to change. It's going from utility, or it's going from utility more into augmentation. Utility. Here's your email. It's a utility to manage this communication. You can create whatever categories you want. You can send and receive however you want. iTunes or Spotify, here's your music. Whatever playlist you want, discover what music you want. That's a utility for managing that. Instead, we're thinking about more like augmentation of how do you help you do something that you want to do. And in a very, very reductive history of what technology and computing power has to do, you used to have computers that literally were in other rooms doing things for you. And then when it became personal, you had computers that let you do certain things like spreadsheets and make documents. And it was connected. It became even more personal than letting you do those things by keeping you connected to all these things that were important to you. Your movies, your photos, your friends and family. That's even more about me. Less about documents for work, and now it's literally about the things around me. And now, because of technology on our person, it has literally become about us. We wear the sensors, and so it isn't about making a spreadsheet, it's about staying on budget. And so the closer technology gets to us, inherently, the more it becomes about us. And we see, I mean, it's literally technology on us. You've seen also probably smart contacts that you can put in, and they'll measure things like glucose levels and things like that. But even in a less extreme way, you see the things that were utilities changing their nature once they start living on us. The ultimate utility app is a calendar app, a calendar software. It's meant to manage this thing for you, these events and appointments. Very much a utility. But now, with things like Google Goals, they're actually extending it. They're saying, well, this is on your person. We know where you are. We can connect to other things that are going on in your app, or on your phone. And so we have this ability to get more data. And so why shouldn't we help you just manage your appointments? But why don't we actually help you do things that you're finding you might not have time, you think you might not have time to do, right? Like meditate more or work out more. Instead, I'm going to put a goal, a goal around some behavior I want to do, and it's going to help me find the time to do it. It's augmenting my ability to do some behavior. It's gone from managing my appointments to saying, well, yeah, we're going to manage your appointments, but really what you want to do is find better time to do the things you want to do. So all said and again, the nature of these products are changing from utility to augment my ability to do stuff. Because you're on my person, you know everything about me. That's a separate conversation, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm going to exchange here if we do say, if you have this information, help me do something. And so again, we now, because they're on our person, we have a more direct relationship with our product and services. I mean more direct because they are physically on us, as wristbands and as phones and eventually even as smart glasses and smart contacts. That relationship is inviting influence. As a matter of fact, most relationships we have in the real world are based on influence. My former colleague of mine, Fawn Ellis, did a lot of research and had a talk that's available on video if you wanted to look it up. And she talked about how increasingly we want to pattern how we have relationship with technology after what makes a good relationship with the people around us. And we're talking about that influence. Most of the people we have interpersonal relationships with that we care about are based on some sort of influence, right? Your doctor or your financial advisor, those are people you have a relationship with that influence you for better health incomes, better financial incomes. Your friends and your family, you hope, hopefully you have a good relationship with your parents and you kind of hope they influence you. You call them for advice on your raising your children. Your friends, Fawn talked about an example. She wanted to get into mountaineering and she has this friend who's a great mountaineer and she kind of wanted to pattern herself and aspire to be like her. And because she's a friend, she trusted her advice. Where do I start? What do I do? So I call this behavior change as a value proposition. Whether it's at sort of this capability feature level or if it's at this product level, it's this idea that the intent, the value exchange of a product or service you're engaging in is designed to have some sort of behavior change, or at least to get to some sort of behavior change outcome, right? Lowering your influence. And so, thinking about that, well, how do the products and services now think about that relationship and think about the influence that they have on us? Right? Lowering your cholesterol, losing weight, conserving energy, you know, running a marathon, whatever that behavior change might be, finding time to meditate in your calendar app. And so, there's a few things that define this type of product or service. And you might have a product or service that you don't think fits this, but then you might realize there's an aspect of your product or service that fits this. So obviously, like I mentioned, their products and services are designed to fit that value exchange. It isn't utilitarian. It's actually specific to behavioral-based outcomes, right? Achieving some sort of goal. Self-selection is one of the key things about it that's important to recognize. So that cafeteria that we rearrange the cafeteria, that's what in behavioral science would be called an intervention, right? On your path, which is to go to the cafeteria, something has been changed for you. You had no say in it, right? So what you're thinking is if you get forms and it's opt-in or opt-out, whatever they've done intentionally is an intervention. They've intervened on this form and have done something to influence you. But when I choose to get a Nest thermostat or I choose to get a Fitbit, I've self-selected for behavior change. I've actually recognized and said I want something to influence my behavior, even if that's an implicit thing I'm thinking about. I want something to influence. If I use Google Goals, I've self-selected for behavior change. It's prescriptive. The system acts as a decision engine making prescriptive recommendations or offerings. I'm looking for that. Weight Watchers are a great example. It's completely prescriptive, right? You'll eat these foods or you'll go through this count of calories or this count of other nutritional data. And if you follow that, you'll likely hit an outcome, right? And there's varying degrees of that. I could have software that kind of acts as a utility for budgeting or doing a program that is about getting out of debt and it tells me I have to do this, this, and this, then it's being very prescriptive. I've self-selected to go in there. I can get out any time, but in a way I've also lost self-determination as long as I stay in that funnel because I'm doing what it says. But I've asked for that. I've basically said to be a decision engine for me. It gives you that augmented ability. It kind of does a little magic for you. Which means that these products or services shouldn't technically do on your own. I can get on budget if I create a spreadsheet and track my finances every day. I don't want to do that, so that's why I'm not on budget. But then if you say, we'll connect to your accounts and we'll do the magic for you and then tell you where you're at on your budget, I'll say, oh, you've augmented my ability to stay on budget. But most of the people can do these behaviors and achieve these outcomes if they were motivated enough, just like donating to the Red Cross to get on the website or call them. But then, if I'm not doing that behavior, but you've said, we can augment your ability. We can provide this a little bit of magic in the value exchange. Okay, I can do this now. And then this is a tricky one. I don't want to say you know how to crack this. It's a time-released value proposition, which means everything we usually get as products, it's an out-of-the-box value proposition. I get my phone, I take it out of the box, I sync it and I'm ready to download apps and message friends and do all this great stuff. I'm receiving the value out of the box. Even a service, like a hotel, within a very short time frame, I'll have understood if I'm getting the value. Pretty much once I check in and I get to my room, I'll know I'm receiving that value effectively like out of the box. But anything that's designed around behavior change and really some outcome means it's going to be based on time. That might be a day, that might be two years, but it's going to be over time. Now, that's part of the disconnect, right? We think if I put this activity tracker on my wrist, it's kind of cool from a tech standpoint, so I feel cool that I've got the new tech and it's giving me some feedback loop on my steps or my miles that I've gone or kilometers that I've gone. But that's not the actual value that's promised. The actual value is some sort of health-based outcome. Be more active, lose weight, lower your cholesterol, whatever it might be for you. That's going to take time. That's why a lot of people drop off the activity tracker that value in the product, the physical product itself, wasn't really delivering out of the box. It's over time if whether that can actually affect the change it needs to. And so how do we think about showing the value incrementally billed so they understand that they are getting the value and that they're making that progress, right? So it's a time-release value proposition. It's not an out-of-the-box time value proposition. So then how do we make sense of behavior? What are we trying to do to set the landscape a little bit that we need as designers to sort of factor in and consider? Well, we have better understanding of the factors that influence how people either make decisions or do behaviors, right? I gave my first talk around applying behavioral science and design in 2011, and it was just introducing that idea like, oh, here's these things that influence behavior, and we have a better understanding of them. We're starting to, probably belatedly, leverage psychology more in our design work. But where there's always been a gap that I have found that I'm hoping to try to fill is how do we apply that? What does that look like in our current set of processes, like design processes, like the things we do in research, the things we do in ideating, the things we do in prototyping? And there's always a big gap. So year after year, I still felt that we were like, we get better, we're learning nudge and behavioral economics and behavioral science, how people are influenced, but we're not understanding, say, how to get that into our products and services. And it's basically a matching problem. If you have a better understanding of how people make their decisions, on the other side, there's all these techniques we've shown to work in influencing behaviors. Defaults, smart defaults is just one example of those, right? And so it's a matching problem. How do we, when we, behavioral design is going to identify those factors and then matches them with the right technique? And so we just need to understand, like, how those things connect. And I'll give you, at a very high level, this is taking from a workshop I do. In my last job, I was head of behavioral design for a financial company in the US. And so I was able to sort of iterate on some workshops and some tools I had already and kind of put them into practice. So we're not going to dive into all these. They're going to be made public fairly soon. But in the big things, in your company, there's the idea of what you can do, what text you can do to frame and measure behavior, which means you all have to be aligned on understanding what is the outcome. It's not just what we want to change behavior. Like, we increase loyalty. We want to increase engagement. Like, what's the ultimate outcome that you can actually measure? That's not unlike, you know, setting OKRs or KPIs, right? It's a very similar thing you want to do. Then you identify what are the behaviors. Once you understand where you need to go or where you're starting from and then where you need to go, like, this is where we need to go. And in an obvious way, it's going to be saying, I weigh this much and I really want to weigh this much. And then you know whether it's a small gap or a big gap. Once you have that, you know, kind of from that prescriptive sense, well, it's going to take certain behaviors to do these things. And the more clear you get on that outcome and that starting point, the more obvious it becomes that it's this narrow range of behaviors. And once you know those behaviors, you can analyze them and say, well, then why do people want to do these behaviors? Why wouldn't they do those behaviors? And then once you understand that, you understand why people are making decisions or why people are doing the behaviors. When you ideate, you can sit there and think about, well, here's a big collection of patterns and techniques. And there's a bunch of places to do it. Dan Lockton, one of the speakers here, has a design with intent toolkit, which is a bunch of flashcards that have all these patterns and behaviors. There's other ones out there as well. So as you get familiar with those, you sit there and go, we understand why people want to do something or why they may not be doing something, and then we can look at what things we can apply to tackle those specifically. We can do the matching problem between these last two. And we could do a whole talk in certain contexts. We should do a whole talk on ethics. And I don't know whether that would be interesting or not interesting for everyone here, but it's definitely very important. I don't have a lot of time to talk about it. I do think that if you, as an organization, explicitly want to start thinking about behavioral design or applying behavioral science or behavioral economics, one of the first steps is to sort of create those guidelines, those ethical guidelines, so that you have some boundaries and some parameters. When I was doing behavioral design, head of behavioral design at the final services company, it's exactly what I did. And there's a whole sort of socialized set of information, almost like our policy around behavioral design. But the thing I have the time to share are sort of these principles that we tended to keep in mind, because we did behavioral design around helping people save more, helping people get out of debt faster. But we also did it around things like digital transformation. How do we get people to stop using tellers and call centers and do more digital tools and things like that? So we know principle, behavioral design should help people do the behavior that they already want to do that is in their best interest. And so all we want to do could be easy, I want to get out of debt or I want to save money. But there's some other things, too, that I actually struggled with when I worked with some teens to do that initial framing and measuring. Like, well, we want people to use bank branch tellers less, because we want them to use our digital tools. And the problem was the research, though, that they were completely fine using tellers. And they were happy with doing it. They liked talking to people. They were kind of fearful of technology. They actually, some people thought if they didn't use the tellers, the tellers were going to get fired. So they worried about that. And that was a genuine worry. But we eventually realized, no matter what, we're going to be investing more in our digital tools. And we're going to be investing less in our physical tools, these bank branches. They'll still be there, but they'll be investing less in them. We're on a digital journey. And we need them to be on a digital journey, so we're going to lose them. And we'd like to presume they're happy being with us, or because they are with us. And if we start de-investing in the physical and investing in the digital, if they're not prepared to go along with us, we'll lose them. So I had a little bit of problem with this, but this is as close as I get to saying, like, okay, so if we start doing these things, we're doing behaviors that will, in the long term, as customers of ours, be in their best interest. They want them to go along with us on our digital journey. Principle two, behavior design must balance customer benefit and business benefit. So it's easy to say, well, it has to benefit the customer, but if it doesn't benefit the business as well, if there's no interest in that, then it's just not going to be sustainable, right? I mean, unless you're working for a nonprofit, and that's great, but when you're doing that scale at commercial products and services, there has to be a balance. Now, conversely, and I struggled with this with this digital transformation project, is if it's only in your interest, you want to change behavior only for the interest of your team, your company, your brand, your product, then it's going to be manipulation, and it's going to be deception, and it's not going to be sustainable, right? And so it has to be a balance, right? An example of this might be Amazon One Click, right? It clearly is designed to help you buy more products by making it frictionless, but also because if you put three or four things in your basket, and all of a sudden, it's 100 euros, you're like, well, that's a lot. Maybe I'll take this one thing out. Now it's 70 euros, and it feels a little bit better, right? Versus if I just buy $40 here, $20 there, $30 there, it doesn't feel like it's adding up, right? So it works on different levels. But there is customer value, right? There's the idea that I enjoy it when I'm buying a book or when I'm buying something, and I just can very quickly do it. I buy stuff for work all the time, and I really want to make the process speed. We can debate where on a spectrum that intent is and where it is, but it technically does balance customer benefit and business benefit. It is not without value to the customer, and you can opt in or opt out of it, so it's not an intervention that you're forced to do. So it has to have that balance. It can't be on one side or the other too much. Any new behavior a person is being prompted to do must be more beneficial than the old or alternate behavior. Because if they do this behavior and it's not more beneficial, they'll size that up in their head, and they won't continue to do it. They'll go back to the old behavior. And this is where I was able to come around a little bit on the digital transformation thing, because what we realized, we weren't going to try to... I helped them reframe that. We're not going to try to... They had it framed. How do we get people to use tellers less? And I was just simple reframing, like, no, let's create new behaviors, make them more engageable, and how do we get them to do new behaviors more? Like use the ATM for deposits, not just the cash machine for deposits, not just withdrawals. And the mobile app, right? So we looked at techniques that would, you know, from a self-selective standpoint, help them opt into this. That made me a little bit better about saying, like, okay, principle number one, we want them on our digital journey. We're not going to make them do anything that we don't want. Kind of like rearranging the cafeteria. We're going to make it more enticing. It might be that, you know, if you have four teller windows, you only have three open, but you have the fourth teller manning the cash machine where they can do deposits and actually servicing people through the cash machine. It could be about the signage around the cash machine and letting them know that, hey, you can use this cash machine for deposits. You might not have realized that. You know, these things that will help them engage with it more because we know it's going to be gradual. We know it's going to be time-released. And so I felt a little bit better about principle one because I understood principle two is we were going to try to get them to do these new behaviors. And because of that, if they didn't enjoy those new behaviors, it wasn't going to stick. So it was on to us to make those behaviors truly feel more beneficial to them. So how do we tackle this a little bit? Well, the punchline is we usually, again, this is helping to sort things out when we say, how do we apply this in the work that we're doing already? I get that we can rearrange cafeterias and we can influence people, but what does that mean thematically? And there's a lot of depth to it, but at the highest level, you're pretty much in three areas. You're thinking about motivation, which is effectively why someone wants to do something, right? Why are they motivated to do it? Then you're thinking about ability, which kind of comes like, I want to do something. I want to stay on budget, but why aren't I doing it? Well, there's lots of reasons, there's restrictions and takes too long and whatever it might be. There's excuses, basically, whether there could be valid excuses, but there are excuses. And then biases and shortcuts. These are the things where it's like, we tend to do, we tend to either be biased towards thinking of certain things, and that's where you'll see in behavioral economics that we do, or we'll use shortcuts for certain things. What we're doing is priming people to do a behavior. So we have to think about that when we're thinking about in our products and services. How do we sparking motivation so that they want to do this behavior? How am I wanting people to use the cash machine for deposits? And then the ability. How do we enable this behavior? What are the friction points or what are the things that we can better enable people to use the cash machine? And then what might people be prone to? What techniques can we use to get their attention and have them say, ah, this is what it is. Is it framing the cash machine, framing it in a different light? Is it a deposit machine, perhaps, right? So we're reframing it, we're leveraging a bias or a shortcut, and then we rethink the cash machine in a different light. And so, motivation, we might need to spark that motivation. There's a ton of different sources to get different levels of motivation. Some people say there are six core motivational drivers people have. If they are motivated to do something, it's going to be one of these six motivational drivers. Some other people have eight. Some of you have seven. And there's no runway. So this is a non-exhaustive list, but it gives you a sense of what we're talking about here. Okay, I'm motivated by a sense of duty or obligation. I might have felt that when I wanted to donate to the Red Cross. There's a motivation of social acceptance. I kind of want to fall in line with what I see my peers doing. So I'm motivated to do what other people are doing. Social proof, social norms. I might have a sense of meaning or purpose, a sense of achievement. I'm motivated through gamification, things like that. I'm motivated to achieve something, and I want to complete this thing and get to this outcome because I'm there. So when you're looking at your work, are these motivations, are you able to sort of categorize them? When you do research with your customers or your users, and you're thinking about this type of problem, are you able to sort of classify like the core motivational drivers? The one or two things are saying like, this is why I would want to do this. You should almost frame it that way. A user is like, I want to do something because of this, and that should be not necessarily with your product, but with the outcome that your product might support. Ability is a little different in that, besides being the reasons why we might not do a behavior, that we are motivated to do, like stay on budget. I'm not motivated to do a spreadsheet. Because there's only a certain number of these things, unlike different ways to classify and think about motivation. It's going to come down to time, money, mental effort, physical effort, or not being familiar. I just don't know how it works. It's kind of like mental effort, but it's sort of like, I don't even know where to start. These are the reasons we might not do something. It's going to take too long, or it's going to be too much energy. I might not be explicit about this, but I have to think about it too hard. So you understand why people want to do something. Then is your research uncovering like, so what are the reasons you're not doing something, or what do you see as the barriers to doing something? If they start to articulate that, and you can start to hear that in the wild, and sort of tease them out from your motivators, like I really feel this sense of wanting to achieve this thing, but then you sit there and hear the ability drivers of like, I just don't have enough time to do this, that, and the other that would help me achieve this thing. And then these shortcuts and biases. This is where the behavioral science comes in, where it's like, okay, there are like, kind of lab proven techniques that have started to be proven in the wild as well, about how people think of doing things. Heuristics is the fancy way of saying the mental shortcuts people do. It's like the rules of thumb I have for making a decision. It helps people make decisions based on limited information. And that could be, well, I really don't want to look at all the details of this product on Amazon, but I see like 70% of people like me are buying it, so I can go ahead and do it, right? That's a shortcut. I've made a mental shortcut, and there's a ton of those types of mental shortcuts that you can research. And then there's a bias, the things that we tend to like fall back on and do. A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation and judgment. Well, I don't want to really do something, or excuse me, it's kind of like, if you reframe something, it could be the exact same thing, but in different wording, I might perceive it differently, right? That's a little bias I have to see something. I might see something as more important if it's emphasized differently. So we fall back on shortcuts when we want to act fast. We don't have time, so it's like, oh, what's the best way to make this decision? We want to find meaning. How do I parse through this information where I can find the most meaning? If you reframe something, that'll happen. We need to parse through lots of information, and we aren't sure what's important. So all of a sudden, we can become victims of these, but this is where choice architecture comes into play. There are patterns, like I mentioned before, that leverage those cognitive biases, and it's kind of scary to think like, oh, we're exploiting these cognitive biases, but that's why if you leverage your principles and it's clear what you're trying to do, hopefully you kind of feel like it's a safe space to do that. So this kind of comes back to design. So in design, if we're not already thinking about behaviors, we should be. And I consider myself an interaction designer. I do product design and service design. I work in the field of UX a lot. But at my core as a practitioner, I think of interaction design. And if you looked up interaction design, there's three or four kind of referred to definitions, and they all include behavior in them. And they're all understanding that we're in some way shaping or facilitating behavior. And this has been a long way of saying that, implicitly, we're already doing this. Coming back to the smart defaults, we're already thinking about this dialogue we have with technology. That implicitly implies a relationship we have with technology, with their products or services. And we're already thinking about the behavior we might be able to facilitate with it. And even if it's not for behavior change explicitly, even if it's to help people use your utility or navigate an airport or make better experience in a hotel, if we're thinking about the fact that we already think about how people are goal driven, right? I mean, if you're designing products and services, chances are you're thinking like, oh, people have a goal in using this product service. This isn't really different. We were just breaking down that goal as needing to take time to get to the goal. And there are behaviors people want to take to get to that goal. So a quick example from the field. I'm a little bit over. I didn't mean to kind of keep the trend going from earlier. This is from a study that people did a few years ago. And what they did is they wanted to affect decisions people were making when they shopped at the supermarket, the grocery. In one early test, a store in Virginia, I have to read it because it's a lot there. Grocery carts carried a strip of yellow duct tape that divided the baskets neatly in half. A flyer instructed shoppers to put their fruits and vessels in front of the cart. And in so, average produce sales per customer jumped from $8.85 from $3.99. So what's happening there a little bit is we might be helping them fall on biases and shortcuts. Some of it might be like no one wants to have an empty area of fruit and veg and be seen as someone who doesn't want fruit and veg. In another basket, another test, scientists created a glossy placard that hung inside the baskets. The signs told shoppers how much produce the average customer was buying, five times a visit, and which fruits and vegetables were the biggest sellers, bananas, limes, and avocados. Information that in science parlance conveys social norms or acceptable behavior. By the second week, produce sales had jumped 10% with a whopping 91% rise for those participating in the women, in the government nutrition program called Women, Infants, and Children. So that's pretty incredible. The 10% is actually kind of incredible that you could influence that. So there's also like, I don't want to make decisions about what I should buy, so I'll go into shortcut. They're giving me these cues. Well, this is what's popular with other people. And social norms and social proof are kind of interesting, because there's the understanding that some of it might be motivation. I want to be like other people. I aspire to be sort of like my peers or whatever. But that's also different than using it as a shortcut, where it's like, I don't actually want to be like people, but I'm going to use what other people are doing as a cue for what I should be doing, because I don't want to take the time and decision. So if we start to play with these elements in the wild, we'll start to understand the context in which we can use those as tools. And so, if nothing else, as you think about your design in general, the practice of design, thinking about behavior more would be great. And when you do that, it's just like thinking about goals. You want to think about outcomes. You have to figure out, well, what are the outcomes people need to get? And if you do that, you know that there's a set number of behaviors. You know, if you're making a tool and you think people are goal design, then you look at their task, right? You model their task, and you know there's set behaviors of tasks, and you're looking at what ways your utility can support their tasks. It's not that different. Here, we know there's certain behaviors people do. So we've kind of taken it out of a feature in an app and we've talked about it in their world and their life. What are the behaviors that have to happen to achieve that outcome? Just like, what are the tasks that we can help people do to achieve that goal with a product? And if you understand those, you can analyze them and understand these are what's motivating people. These are the ability factors of why people might not be doing it. And then you can understand, taking patterns that already exist, what are the interactions that need to be supported? And then so hopefully, even if you're doing this for products and services where it's not explicit about behavior change, you're thinking more explicitly about behaviors. Thank you very much.