• Current interventions often fail to build lasting hygiene habits. Despite global campaigns, preventable infections remain widespread in children. 
• Design the environment to default to hygiene. When clean hands are the easiest choice, either due to layout, access, and prompts, expect to see increases in compliance rates and healthy behaviors. 
• Tie hygiene habits to immediate cues and rewards. Children respond to what’s felt now, not later. Gamified prompts and real-time reinforcement can outperform long-term health messaging.
• Make hygiene visible, social, and modeled. Kids copy what they see. When peers and adults demonstrate and expect hygiene consistently, habits spread without formal instruction.

Improving children’s hygiene isn’t a new priority—yet the burden remains. Despite decades of global efforts, young children continue to experience preventable infections at alarming rates. Diarrheal disease remains the second leading cause of death in children under five, responsible for over four hundred thousand annual fatalities worldwide.¹ Their impact extends beyond survival: illness disrupts school attendance, weakens academic performance, and sets back physical and cognitive development.^2-4

Oral health is no exception. Although brushing twice daily with fluoride toothpaste is a well-known preventive strategy,⁵ early childhood caries (ECC) remains widespread, particularly in low-resource settings.⁶ According to the World Health Organization (WHO), oral diseases—including caries, periodontal disease, and oral/dental trauma—are among the most common noncommunicable diseases.⁷ Yet adoption of prevention behaviors remains inconsistent.

Interventions haven’t always closed the gap. A recent rapid review of eight randomized trials evaluating school-based oral health programs found limited evidence of effectiveness.⁸ Only one trial showed population-wide improvement. Another found benefits restricted to children living in households with high socioeconomic status. A third saw worse outcomes post-intervention. 

What’s needed now is more precise targeting that moves beyond educational interventions to improve children’s hygiene habits. Behaviorally-informed interventions that adjust the choice environment—what’s visible, what’s reinforced, what feels socially expected—can shift hygiene from instruction to habit. After all, kids touch everything. If clean hands are what’s modeled, expected, and reinforced, they stop being an instruction and start being the baseline. That means fewer disruptions, fewer infections, and more days spent learning instead of recovering.

Children aren’t naturally hygienic. They touch everything. They forget soap. They put fingers in noses, mouths, and sometimes even other kids’ lunches. It’s not a character flaw—it’s how they explore the world. However, in places where disease risk is high and healthcare is harder to reach, those tiny habits carry serious consequences.

Diarrheal disease remains the second leading cause of death in children under five.¹ Every year, it claims more than 440,000 young lives—despite being both preventable and treatable. Respiratory infections, including pneumonia, add thousands more. Studies show that handwashing with soap could prevent a third of diarrheal cases and nearly one-fifth of respiratory infections in children.⁹ The behavior is simple. The impact is huge. And still, global handwashing rates hover around just 19%.¹⁰

It’s not that children haven’t been told. Many have. In classrooms, clinics, and homes, they’ve seen posters, heard songs, and been taught the right steps.¹¹ The problem isn’t awareness—it’s follow-through. And that’s where things begin to break down.

In low- and middle-income countries, structural barriers make consistency difficult. In India alone, more than 30 million children aged 6–13 have never attended school.¹² Among those who do, class sizes are large, teaching materials are limited, and time is tight. Even when hygiene is covered in the curriculum, there’s no guarantee it sticks. Education happens. Habit formation doesn’t always follow through.

Outside the classroom, the gap widens. Some families lack running water. Others can’t afford soap. Many caregivers can’t read the materials sent home. In these contexts, even well-designed messaging struggles to take root. Information competes with survival, stress, and everything else pulling on a parent’s attention. It’s not that people don’t care—it’s that their mental bandwidth is already maxed out.

That’s why education-only approaches so often fall short. A child might have been taught about what to do. They might even know why it’s important. However, knowing doesn’t mean doing. Habits don’t form in isolation. They need reinforcement, consistency, and environments that make the behavior easier to repeat than to ignore.

There are other ways to reinforce what kids already know—approaches that don’t rely on reminders, perfect memory, or yet another round of posters. Behavioral science offers a set of tools that can help close the gap between learning and doing.

Children don’t always resist hygiene—but they often overlook it. In low-income settings, where attention is finite and resources are stretched, remembering to wash their hands might slip off the radar. What’s needed isn’t more instruction, but low-cost behavioral strategies that make clean habits more noticeable, naturally rewarding, and easy to repeat.

Make the Soap the Reward

In many households, a bar of soap sits by the bathroom sink—technically present, but not commanding a child’s attention. For a bouncing six-year-old rushing from the toilet to their favorite afternoon snack, the soap blends into the background and fails to register as part of the routine. In behavioral science, this is a failure of saliency—the idea that an object must stand out and feel relevant for it to receive attention.¹³

A recent proof-of-concept study in an internally displaced persons camp tested a simple but creative solution to increase the saliency of handwashing among 80 households with children: transparent soap bars with small toys embedded inside.¹⁴ Children could see the toy but could only access it through repeated use of the soap bar. The result? Children in the intervention group were four times more likely to wash their hands with soap after key moments, such as after using the toilet, before eating, or before preparing food, compared to those who received regular soap and hygiene messaging.

This worked not because the soap was novel, but because it made the behavior visually and intrinsically rewarding. In contexts where structured reinforcement is limited, embedding the reward directly into the behavior reduces the need for ongoing instruction. The soap becomes both the prompt and the incentive. It's a simple, low-cost, and scalable approach.

Reduce Friction, Add Cues, Make the Behavior Obvious

In low-resource settings, even tiny barriers that make handwashing slightly more effortful can derail the activity significantly: soap placed out of reach, taps that drip water slowly, or water that isn’t quite within reach. This is where the behavioral concept of friction becomes crucial. Friction doesn’t have to mean large obstacles. It can be a single inconvenience layered onto an already rushed routine.

However, friction works both ways. By removing unnecessary steps and placing everything children need in one visible, intuitive spot, you don’t just reduce resistance—you create a behavioral shortcut.

For instance, one study found that handwashing rates in rural Bangladesh were quite poor: just 14% washed both hands after bathroom use.¹⁵ Yet 72% had water nearby and 42% had soap.¹⁶ What was missing in most cases? Soap and water weren’t together, creating a barrier for individuals to wash their hands effectively.¹⁷

A school-based intervention in Bangladesh flipped this script with two design tweaks: paved footpaths linking latrines to sinks, and bright painted footprints guiding students to them.¹⁸ No lectures, no posters. Just color-coded friction reduction. In just six weeks, handwashing rates soared from 4% at baseline to 74%.

This is a textbook application of nudges—nonverbal cues that shift behavior without conscious effort. When handprints on sinks say “use me,” and the path to the tap is literally paved, handwashing becomes the obvious next step.

These nudges are cheap, fast, and scalable. More importantly, they’re localizable: painted paths can adapt to any context, and soap placement can follow the flow of real family routines. For crowded homes or community bathrooms, even a shared “handwashing hub” placed next to the toilet can reshape behavior without reshaping the household budget.

The future of hygiene in settings with limited resources will benefit significantly from clever placement, strategic color, and design that supports the decisions children already want to make—as long as we help make those decisions easier.

To a child, maintaining good hygiene doesn’t typically feel worth it.

Ask a five-year-old to brush their teeth or wash their hands, and they’ll often stall, bargain, or flat-out resist. And from their perspective, it makes sense. Hygiene interrupts play. It requires effort, sequencing, and self-regulation. Most importantly, it offers no immediate, visible reward—not now, not soon, and not in any way that feels meaningful.

While adults associate hygiene with long-term benefits—reduced illness, fewer cavities, better peer acceptance—those outcomes are abstract, delayed, or both.¹⁹ Children don’t anchor behavior around future gains the way adults do. Their cognitive development simply doesn’t support it. This is where behavioral economics meets developmental psychology: temporal discounting tells us people devalue rewards the further they are in the future, and children do this to an even greater degree.^20,21 Their decision-making system is tilted heavily toward the present.

The classic marshmallow experiment demonstrated that most preschoolers struggle to delay gratification even by minutes, let alone days, weeks or months.²¹ Telling a child to brush now to prevent a cavity in six months is like asking them to invest in an invisible currency. The reward is distant and intangible. The cost—time, effort, discomfort—is immediate and concrete.

That gap is even wider for children with sensory sensitivities. Between 5% and 16% of kids experience sensory over-responsivity.²² For them, water can feel startling, toothpaste too spicy, and shampoo might sting. What registers as mild discomfort to most children can feel overwhelming to them. When that discomfort is paired repeatedly with a hygiene task, it turns into a learned aversion.

This isn’t abstract theory—it’s how resistance builds. One gag on toothpaste or sting from shampoo, and a child might resist for days or weeks. In behavioral terms, classical and operant conditioning work together. First, through classical conditioning, the child starts to associate hygiene with discomfort. Then operant conditioning takes over: skipping the routine brings immediate relief, and that relief acts like a reward. Over time, what began as a single unpleasant moment evolves into a patterned refusal.

Of course, not every child is sensitive or avoidant. Sometimes, they’re just bored or forgetful. A survey of 266 Greek schoolchildren found that the top barriers to brushing included forgetfulness, boredom, and not understanding why hygiene matters.²³ These are kids who can follow instructions—they just don’t see the point or struggle to connect the action with its benefits. 

Behaviorally speaking, hygiene often has high cognitive load and low intrinsic saliency. It’s easy to skip, easy to forget, and rarely rewarding in the moment. And in a busy household, where adults are multitasking and attention is stretched, even small behavioral friction points—like a hard-to-reach towel or an empty soap dispenser requiring replenishment—can tip the balance toward inaction.

Essentially, when hygiene is all cost and no visible reward, kids will choose what feels better right now, and that’s rarely going to be heading over to the sink, the tub, or the hairbrush.

If you ask a preschooler why they should brush their teeth or wash their hands, you likely won’t hear “to prevent cavities.” Hygiene, to a child, isn’t about long-term health—it’s a now-or-never decision. Either it feels rewarding in the moment, or it doesn’t happen at all.

Designing Hygiene That Feels Rewarding

Operant conditioning suggests that behavior followed by a reinforcing stimulus is more likely to be repeated.²⁴ In the case of children’s hygiene, that stimulus has historically been abstract: a promise of cavity prevention, fewer colds, or general “health.” Unfortunately, these are outcomes children rarely see nor care about in the moment. The more effective approach is to embed reinforcement directly into the task itself: something visible, repeatable, and tied to effort, not outcome.

Brush Up, a mobile app designed for 4–6-year-olds, offers a clear example.^25,26 Instead of relying on a parent’s instructions, it transforms brushing into a game where children mimic animated coaches, score points based on technique, and trade those points for digital rewards like virtual toys or bathroom decorations. Unlike lectures about plaque, the app provides a closed feedback loop—action, reward, and progress—all contained within a child’s attention span. When tested in an experimental study against both video instruction and manual demonstration, only the app group showed significant improvement in plaque scores after one month.²⁶ That success wasn’t just due to information delivery, but to the reinforcement schedule.

Beyond digital interventions, the same logic can be applied to any hygiene task when paired with something intrinsically fun or socially acknowledged. Colorful stickers, brushing charts with prizes, or even praise delivered with theatrical enthusiasm can serve as effective reinforcers. If brushing earns a point, a smile, or a chance to choose tonight’s bedtime story, the behavior might no longer be viewed as a demand, but as an activity with clear rules and rewards.

For those wary of relying too much on external reinforcement, there's another option: design learning so that it becomes its own reward. When the activity is fun, engaging, and socially shared, the experience itself becomes reinforcing—no stickers or prizes required. In one trial based in India, a modified Snake and Ladders game taught 10 hygiene behaviors such as brushing, handwashing, and nail cutting.²⁷ Compared to controls, their hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices improved significantly within five days. The mechanism again was immediate, interactive feedback rather than delayed, abstract messaging.

The more we’re able to align hygiene routines with children’s cognitive, emotional, and sensory realities, the more sustainable those routines will become.

Making the Act Itself Less Aversive

Even with strong incentives, if the experience of hygiene is irritating, kids will resist. Not every child tolerates the same things. Some recoil at the smell of antiseptic products. Others hate the slap of cold water, the overpowering scent of bubblegum fluoride, or the way lotion feels like a film they can’t wipe off.

These sensations aren’t trivial—they’re hidden barriers in plain sight.

Reducing friction starts with noticing what children avoid—and then bundling it with something they’re already drawn to. Known in behavioral science as “temptation bundling,” this strategy pairs an unpleasant task with an immediately enjoyable one to increase follow-through.²⁸ A child might brush their teeth while listening to a favorite song. Another might wash their hands during a silly dance or take a bath with their favorite action figure. Warm water, softer towels, gentler smells—all of these are micro-adjustments that reduce resistance. The principle is simple but powerful: if a child’s early experiences feel tolerable—or even fun—future compliance is far easier to sustain.

On paper, schools appear to be well-positioned for hygiene promotion. They offer routine, access, and a structured environment—all useful ingredients. However, translating those advantages into sustained behavior change has proven more complex than expected.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based hygiene interventions sheds light on this complexity.²⁹ Across three studies involving nearly 4,800 participants, dental hygiene showed small improvements. Similarly, four studies with a combined sample of about 2,300 children reported modest gains in dental caries scores. However, when it came to overall oral hygiene, the results moved in the opposite direction. In two studies covering 652 students, hygiene scores actually worsened following intervention. While the total number of studies was limited and sample sizes ranged widely, the findings underscore a core challenge in which even interventions that are thoughtfully designed and grounded in theory may produce effects that don’t align across outcomes or persist over time.

Rather than a matter of content alone, the issue often stems from how these programs are delivered and reinforced. Traditional approaches—assemblies, posters, lectures—tend to increase awareness, yet they don’t consistently lead to behavior that sticks. In one quasi-experimental study from Thailand, a multidisciplinary intervention called “Germ-Free Hands” showed strong short-term results. Knowledge, intentions, and even hand-washing behavior improved immediately following education, workshops, and performance feedback.³⁰ But by the three-month mark, bacterial counts had increased again, and handwashing behaviors had declined. The intervention was thoughtfully built; its impact, however, was difficult to sustain without continued engagement.

Knowledge and behavior, especially in hygiene, don’t always track together. Children can repeat what they’ve been taught while still skipping the sink. Germs are invisible, consequences are delayed, and without strong environmental cues, even clear instruction may not shift daily routines in the long run.

Program focus also matters. Most interventions center on children themselves, often leaving out the adults who shape their habits. This omission is notable. In a study involving over 500 parents, researchers found that those with strong personal oral hygiene skills were far more likely to prioritize brushing in their children.³¹ Household modeling wasn’t just helpful—it was predictive. Despite this, few programs are designed with caregiver behavior as a core component, even though it’s one of the most influential factors available.³¹

Another element often overlooked is how hygiene gets framed. Children might not encounter it as a source of agency or status in education settings. However, behavioral science tells us that durable habits often grow from identity, pride, or social alignment.²² “I’m the class handwashing leader” might offer more sticking power than “I was told to wash my hands again.” 

Finally, at the systems level, schools still operate outside many national hygiene and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) strategies.²⁹ Infection control efforts have largely concentrated on hospitals and clinics, even though schools—high-density and high-contact—present clear opportunities for targeted intervention. Without formal integration into broader health policies, school efforts risk remaining fragmented or ad hoc.

Altogether, the challenge isn’t that hygiene education lacks value. The issue is that outcomes depend on far more than content—on timing, repetition, social context, and cues that reinforce action. When those elements aren’t aligned, even thoughtful programs may underdeliver on their potential.

Children don’t just learn hygiene—they absorb it. Sometimes it’s deliberate. More often, it’s ambient: what they see, what gets repeated, what others seem to take seriously. That’s where the opportunity lies.

1. Let Modeling Do the Heavy Lifting

Most parents don’t need more information about good hygiene habits. They already know that brushing, bathing, and handwashing matter. What often gets in the way is everything else—the thousand tiny demands that compete for energy and attention. When cognitive bandwidth is stretched, even simple routines—like reminding a child to wash their hands—become easier to miss.³³ This is the core insight of scarcity: when time is tight or mental load is high, attention narrows. Parents may know what their children should be doing, but the energy required to prompt, repeat, and monitor each hygiene task isn’t always available. 

One practical alternative doesn’t involve extra reminders—it involves modeling the behavior in real-time. Parents who brush their teeth or wash their hands alongside their children aren’t just multitasking—they’re teaching through example. Social learning theory provides the scaffolding here.³⁴ Introduced by Albert Bandura, the theory suggests that people, especially children, acquire behavior by observing others who are competent, familiar, or emotionally salient. Watching someone else perform a task can generate mental rehearsal. Over time, that rehearsal gives way to repetition. Eventually, repetition forms a routine.

Evidence supports this mechanism in hygiene-specific contexts. In one experimental study, researchers implemented a personal hygiene program based explicitly on social learning theory with a group of 5- to 6-year-olds in Turkey.³⁵ Children in the intervention group observed health educators demonstrating handwashing and oral care routines over four weeks. Children in the control group received routine hygiene education during the same period. While both the intervention and control groups showed improvement, gains in the observational learning group were significantly greater, especially in handwashing and oral health outcomes measured one week later.

These findings offer something worth considering. Children may see the educational posters and slideshows, but it’s the hygiene-related behaviors they observe—who does it, how often, and under what conditions—that might stick better. When self-care becomes a shared act between caregiver and child—brushing their teeth together, washing hands side by side—it may settle in as both a habit and a moment of connection.

2. Use Peer Norms as Reinforcement

Children are deeply motivated by the urge to join in, belong, and imitate those they admire. Developmental psychologists have shown that as kids move through preschool and into the early school years, peer approval becomes a surprisingly strong driver of behavior.³⁶ When handwashing or toothbrushing is framed as something “everyone here” does, it stops feeling like a rule to follow. It starts to feel like part of how things work. That cue may activate what behavioral scientists call “normative conformity”—the natural pull to match the habits and expectations of the group.³⁷ Hygiene, when linked to being responsible or “one of the big kids,” may be more likely to show up without being directly asked.

A growing number of studies have begun to demonstrate the behavioral impact of peer influence. One study based in Iran, found that peer-led oral health sessions in a sample of female fourth-grade students produced stronger behavior change than teacher-led instruction—even though both covered the same material.³⁸ In Ethiopia, a school-based peer education program involving over 1,000 students used hygiene clubs, role-play, and visual reminders to improve oral hygiene habits. The results? Increased knowledge, fewer reported illnesses, and more durable behavior change.³⁹ What mattered wasn’t just the message—it was who delivered it.

Leveraging peer influence in school settings doesn’t require a new curriculum. A buddy system for washroom routines, or a rotating role like a hygiene leader who models handwashing and prompts classmates before meals, can lead to better handwashing rates. These aren’t disciplinary tools. They’re simple social cues that make hygiene visible, expected, and reinforced by the group.

Research supports this approach. In one study using covert video outside school latrines, handwashing with soap rose by 30% when another person—peer or adult—was nearby.⁴⁰ The highest rates appeared when children were surrounded by peers. To improve children’s hygiene, we’ve got to treat peer and parental roles as part of the choice architecture—what’s seen, what’s easy, and what feels like the norm.

Behavioral science interventions in hygiene can look deceptively simple. Nudges, rewards, and modeling often show early success; however, sustaining those positive effects is rarely easy. Hygiene habits that begin with novelty—like a game, a sticker, or a catchy little tune—can fade if the reward loses its saliency. And when reinforcement no longer feels meaningful, the desired behavior may fade, too.

A similar concern with reward systems, even if they’re effective in building momentum, is that they require careful design. If the reward’s delivered too frequently, it risks crowding out intrinsic motivation; if too infrequent, children may stop noticing them. Accessibility matters too. When “fun” soaps or digital tools exist only in some classrooms or homes, the result isn’t equity—it’s exclusion disguised as innovation.

Peer-led models carry their own social calculus. Leadership can empower, yet it can also isolate if handled without sensitivity. No child should feel singled out or shamed for struggling with hygiene, and peer roles should rotate to reinforce belonging rather than signal hierarchy. 

These aren’t reasons to step back from behavioral design. They’re reminders to approach it with balance—centering equity and testing how each intervention holds up in real-world conditions.

From posters to policies, the world has spent decades trying to teach hygiene. The message is clear, yet the behavior still trails behind. Across contexts, the same pattern emerges: awareness rises, habits fade, and small lapses grow into broader health setbacks. The three challenges explored here—limited access, invisible rewards, and weak social reinforcement—point to one conclusion: the gap between knowing and doing isn’t rooted awareness; it’s rooted in design. Children don’t build hygiene habits through instruction alone. They learn them through environments that make clean behavior effortless, valued, and visible.

What’s needed now isn’t another round of education campaigns—it’s design that reflects how children actually think, behave, and live. When soap’s within reach, when peers reinforce good behavior, and when every clean hand feels like a small success, hygiene stops being a lesson and starts becoming instinct. These shifts may sound simple, yet they’re powerful because they make consistency easier than neglect.

Here at The Decision Lab, our team works collaboratively to turn insights like these into action, and we take deep pride in helping organizations build interventions that align with how children learn, play, and connect. If your team’s looking to strengthen public health programs or design behaviorally-informed solutions for children, we’d love to join forces.

Evidence-Based Strategies For Washing Your Hands

Most adults assume they’re good at handwashing, yet studies show compliance rates barely outpace children’s. This short piece explores evidence-backed ways to make handwashing stick, from scented soap that cues repetition to clever environmental design like brightly colored signage or images of human eyes posted near sinks. The result? A few small tweaks that shift hygiene from forgettable to automatic.

Youth Mental Health is in Crisis. Can Behavioral Science Help?

Beyond hygiene and self-care, there’s another area where behavioral science may offer critical support: youth mental health. This piece explores how nudges, boosts, and low-friction design can help young people access the care they need when they need it most.

1. Hartman, R. M., Cohen, A. L., Antoni, S., Mwenda, J., Weldegebriel, G., Biey, J., ... & Nakamura, T. (2023). Risk factors for mortality among children younger than age 5 years with severe diarrhea in low-and middle-income countries: Findings from the World Health Organization-coordinated Global Rotavirus and Pediatric Diarrhea Surveillance Networks. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 76(3), e1047–e1053. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciac561 
2. Azor-Martinez, E., Cobos-Carrascosa, E., Seijas-Vazquez, M. L., Fernández-Sánchez, C., Strizzi, J. M., Torres-Alegre, P., et al. (2016). Hand hygiene program decreases school absenteeism due to upper respiratory infections. The Journal of School Health, 86(12), 873–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12454
3. Pinkerton, R., Oria, R. B., Lima, A. A., Rogawski, E. T., Oria, M. O., Patrick, P. D., et al. (2016). Early childhood diarrhea predicts cognitive delays in later childhood independently of malnutrition. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 95(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0150
4. Tsang, T. K., Huang, X., Guo, Y., Lau, E. H. Y., Cowling, B. J., & Ip, D. K. M. (2023). Monitoring school absenteeism for influenza-like illness surveillance: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 9, e41329. https://doi.org/10.2196/41329
5. Cury, J. A., & Tenuta, L. M. A. (2014). Evidence-based recommendation on toothpaste use. Brazilian Oral Research, 28(spe), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242014.50000001 
6. Singh, A., Peres, M. A., & Watt, R. G. (2019). The relationship between income and oral health: A critical review. Journal of Dental Research, 98(8), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519849557 
7. World Health Organization. (2022, November 17). Oral health. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health
8. Shakir, A., Barngkgei, I., Godson, J., & Joury, E. (2021). Effectiveness of school-based behavioural interventions to improve children’s oral health by reducing sugar intake and promoting oral hygiene: A rapid review of randomised controlled trials. Community Dental Health, 38(4), 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_00014Shakir09 
9. Xun, Y., Shi, Q., Yang, N., Li, Y., Si, W., Shi, Q., ... & Chen, Y. (2021). Associations of hand washing frequency with the incidence of illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Translational Medicine, 9(5), 395. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-6005 
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024, April 17). Handwashing facts. https://www.cdc.gov/clean-hands/data-research/facts-stats/index.html
11. Jatrana, S., Hasan, M. M., Mamun, A. A., & Fatima, Y. (2021). Global variation in hand hygiene practices among adolescents: The role of family and school-level factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4984. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094984 
12. Oxfam India. (2015, November 2). India’s missing millions of out-of-school children: A case of reality not living up to estimation. https://uatwar.oxfamindia.org/featuredstories/indias-missing-millions-out-school-children-case-reality-not-living-estimation
13. Treue, S. (2003). Visual attention: The where, what, how and why of saliency. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(4), 428–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(03)00105-3 
14. Watson, J., Dreibelbis, R., Aunger, R., Deola, C., King, K., Long, S., ... & Cumming, O. (2019). Child's play: Harnessing play and curiosity motives to improve child handwashing in a humanitarian setting. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222(2), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.09.002 
15. Halder, A. K., Tronchet, C., Akhter, S., Bhuiya, A., Johnston, R., & Luby, S. P. (2010). Observed hand cleanliness and other measures of handwashing behavior in rural Bangladesh. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 545. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-545 
16. Luby, S. P., Halder, A. K., Tronchet, C., Akhter, S., Bhuiya, A., & Johnston, R. B. (2009). Household characteristics associated with handwashing with soap in rural Bangladesh. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 81(5), 882–887. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2009.09-0031 
17. Luby, S. P., Halder, A. K., Huda, T., Unicomb, L., & Johnston, R. B. (2011). The effect of handwashing at recommended times with water alone and with soap on child diarrhea in rural Bangladesh: An observational study. PLoS Medicine, 8(6), e1001052. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001052 
18. Dreibelbis, R., Kroeger, A., Hossain, K., Venkatesh, M., & Ram, P. K. (2016). Behavior change without behavior change communication: Nudging handwashing among primary school students in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010129 
19. Satish Kumar, B., Reddy, M. A., Paul, P., Das, L., Darshan, J. C., Berlin, P. K., ... & Ravindra, B. N. (2020). Importance of understanding the need of personal hygiene: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Research in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 5, 56–61.
20. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.40.2.351 
21. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056 
22. Ben-Sasson, A., Carter, A. S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2009). Sensory over-responsivity in elementary school: Prevalence and social-emotional correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008‑9295‑8 
23. Angelopoulou, M., Kavvadia, K., Oulis, C., & Reppa, C. (2015). Oral hygiene facilitators and barriers in Greek 10-year-old schoolchildren. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 8(2), 87.
24. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045185 
25. Brush Up. (n.d.). Research. Brush Up Game. Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.brushupgame.com/about1-c20or
26. Desai, R. V., Badrapur, N. C., Mittapalli, H., Srivastava, B. K., Eshwar, S., & Jain, V. (2021). “Brush up”: An innovative technological aid for parents to keep a check of their children’s oral hygiene behaviour. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 39, e2020085. https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2021/39/2020085 
27. Pukhraj, K. S., Deol, R., & Kodi, S. M. (2021). Effect of Snake and Ladder game on knowledge, attitude, and expressed practices regarding personal hygiene among primary school children: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Research, 81–88. https://innovationaljournals.com/index.php/ijnr/article/view/209 
28. Milkman, K. L., Minson, J. A., & Volpp, K. G. (2014). Holding the Hunger Games hostage at the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management Science, 60(2), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1784
29. Ismail, S. R., Radzi, R., Megat Kamaruddin, P. S. N., Lokman, E. F., Lim, H. Y., Abdul Rahim, N., ... & Lai, N. M. (2024). The effects of school-based hygiene intervention programme: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(10), e0308390. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308390 
30. Kitsanapun, A., & Yamarat, K. (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of the “Germ-Free Hands” intervention for improving the hand hygiene practices of public health students. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 533–541. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S203825 
31. Vanagas, G., Milašauskienė, Ž., Grabauskas, V., & Mickevičienė, A. (2009). Associations between parental skills and their attitudes toward importance to develop good oral hygiene skills in their children. Medicina, 45(9), 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina45090094 
32. Verplanken, B., & Sui, J. (2019). Habit and identity: Behavioral, cognitive, affective, and motivational facets of an integrated self. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01504 
33. Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.
34. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
35. Biyikoglu Alkan, I., Bora Gunes, N., Ozsavran, M., & Kuzlu Ayyildiz, T. (2025). Impact of personal hygiene education based on social learning theory on preschool children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 53(2), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12477 
36. Laursen, B. (2021). Toward understanding the functions of peer influence. Child Development Perspectives, 15(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12606 
37. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 
38. Karami, A., Heidarnia, A., & Zarei, F. (2019). Comparison of peer-led and teacher-led oral health educational program among students. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, 18, e191626. https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v18i0.8657259 
39. Tamiru, D., Argaw, A., Gerbaba, M., Ayana, G., Nigussie, A., Jisha, H., & Belachew, T. (2017). Enhancing personal hygiene behavior and competency of elementary school adolescents through peer-led approach and school-friendly strategies: A quasi-experimental study. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences, 27(3), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v27i3.6 
40. Grover, E., Hossain, M. K., Uddin, S., Venkatesh, M., Ram, P. K., & Dreibelbis, R. (2018). Social influence on handwashing with soap: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 99(4), 934. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.17-0903