> the one dollar group said they enjoyed it the most Counterintuitive. Interesting. But not really definitive. Here's the key quote: > The difference between

> the one dollar group said they enjoyed it the most Counterintuitive. Interesting. But not really definitive. Here's the key quote: > The difference between the One and Twenty Dollar conditions reaches the .08 level of significance on a two-tailed test (t = 1.79). The sample sizes here are tiny, about 20 people per. Without meaning any offense to you in particular, I've often observed that "interesting" social science findings like this take on disproportionate significance when verbally summarized as "enjoyed it the most" or "more effective". That only tells you a tiny bit about (respectively) ranks or the sign of the difference. Lacking detailed knowledge of the experiment (= effect sizes + confidence intervals), one doesn't know how robust those ranks or orderings are if the experiment was repeated...which is, in this case, what the citation boils down to: a tacit suggestion to repeat the experiment with compensation at your business! Again, zero offense intended. My only point is that social science type findings like this should be handled with great skepticism, particularly if the results are counterintuitive and involve small sample sizes. (PS: I do agree that money is often the most expensive way to motivate people. It does not motivate me. But I think some of Dan Ariely's work is more persuasive in this regard.)