Crosswalk signals in Mountain View, California, have undergone an important upgrade. The old system required pedestrians and cyclists to press a button to activate the walk signal. For cyclists, this often meant stopping and dismounting, creating an inconvenience.
In contrast, the new system is a touchless design that allows pedestrians and cyclists to wave their hand to activate the signal. This improvement makes it more convenient for everyone, especially cyclists who no longer need to stop and manually press a button.
This shift may also reflect changing attitudes towards physical touch in public spaces after the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumer researchers highilghted the importance of the “need for touch,” but this need may have diminished as people increasingly avoid touching shared surfaces. The new touchless crosswalk system may be an adaptation to this evolving preference, signaling a broader trend toward touchless design in public spaces.
This research details the development of the “Need for Touch” (NFT) scale designed to measure individual differences in preference for haptic (touch) information. The 12-item NFT scale consists of autotelic and instrumental dimensions. Results are reported that support the scale’s hypothesized internal structure as well as its reliability, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Individual differences in chronic accessibility to haptic information across groups varying in NFT were also found in two experiments. Additionally, NFT moderated the relationship between direct experience and confidence in judgment.
A recent drive on an express lane showed tolls as high as $9 to Broadway and $10 to I-380, depending on real-time conditions. What makes this interesting is that the price for using the same road is not predetermined; it is decided on the spot.
Dynamic toll pricing may adjust based on traffic volume, creating an anchor for drivers to evaluate the value of the express lane. If traffic is heavy, the higher toll can feel worth it when compared to the frustration of sitting in congestion. This shifting price serves as a real-time incentive or deterrent, depending on how drivers value their time at that moment.
Mental accounting, the tendency to categorize resources such as money and time, is a key principle at work. The price is not just about the toll but about the potential loss of time stuck in traffic. For many, the higher toll feels like a small price to pay to avoid the larger loss of wasted time, especially during busy hours.
Dynamic pricing taps into our varying perceptions of time. During a stressful commute, paying $10 to save several minutes is more appealing than when traffic is light. The system uses behavioral cues to nudge drivers into seeing the express lane as a valuable, time-saving option.
In essence, dynamic toll pricing leverages human psychology to adjust behavior in real time, making the express lane more than just a road—it is a reflection of what happens when we convert time into money.
The sunk-cost effect, an irrational attention to non-recoverable past costs while making current decisions, has been documented widely in the domain of monetary costs. In this paper, I study the effect of past time investments on current decisions. In three experiments using choice situations, I demonstrate that the sunk-cost effect is not observed for past investments of time, but the effect reappears when the investments are expressed as monetary quantities. I further propose that this ‘pseudo-rationality’ is due to the fact that individuals lack the ability to account for time in the same way as they account for money. In two additional experiments, I facilitate the accounting of time and show that the irrational sunk-cost effect reappears. In a final experiment, I test my propositions in a setting where subjects make real investments of time and subsequently make real choices.
Recently, while applying for my driver license in California, I encountered a section about organ donation. The DMV’s (Department of Motor Vehicles) approach is an example of default.
First, they primed me with two statements:
“One person can save up to 8 lives, and heal over 75, through organ and tissue donation for transplantation. You can register regardless of age or health.”
“Organ donation happens after death, and your decision will not impact medical treatment.”
The first statement emphasizes the positive impact, while the second addresses potential concerns. This balanced approach put me at ease and highlighted benefits.
Then comes the question: “Would you like to register?” with two options: “Yes” or “Not at this time.” This is where default comes into play. By framing the question this way, they make saying “yes” feel like the natural choice.
Interestingly, even if I chose “Not at this time,” I was informed that I am still in the registry but without the pink dot on my license that indicates donor status. This opt-out process requires additional steps, making it more likely for people to remain registered.
This example resonates the findings of Johnson & Goldstein’s 2003 study on how defaults influence decision-making. By designing the process this way, the California DMV is likely increasing organ donation rates without forcing anyone’s hand.
***
Reference
Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.
“If preferences concerning organ donation are strong, we would expect defaults to have little or no effect. However, as can be seen in the figure, defaults appear to make a large difference: the four opt-in countries (gold) had the lower rates than the six opt-out countries (blue)… One reason these results appear to be greater than those in our laboratory study is that the cost of changing from the default is higher; it involves filling out forms, making phone calls, and sending mail.” (pg. 1339)
