Over the course of many years, without making any great fuss about it, the authorities in New York disabled most of the control buttons that once operated pedestrian-crossing lights in the city. Computerised timers, they had decided, almost always worked better. By 2004, fewer than 750 of 3,250 such buttons remained functional. The city government did not, however, take the disabled buttons away—beckoning countless fingers to futile pressing.
Initially, the buttons survived because of the cost of removing them. But it turned out that even inoperative buttons serve a purpose. Pedestrians who press a button are less likely to cross before the green man appears, says Tal Oron-Gilad of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in Israel. Having studied behaviour at crossings, she notes that people more readily obey a system which purports to heed their input.
Inoperative buttons produce placebo effects of this sort because people like an impression of control over systems they are using, says Eytan Adar, an expert on human-computer interaction at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr Adar notes that his students commonly design software with a clickable “save” button that has no role other than to reassure those users who are unaware that their keystrokes are saved automatically anyway. Think of it, he says, as a touch of benevolent deception to counter the inherent coldness of the machine world.
That is one view. But, at road crossings at least, placebo buttons may also have a darker side. Ralf Risser, head of FACTUM, a Viennese institute that studies psychological factors in traffic systems, reckons that pedestrians’ awareness of their existence, and consequent resentment at the deception, now outweighs the benefits. | Selama bertahun-tahun, tanpa membantahnya, pihak berkuasa di New York melumpuhkan kebanyakan butang kawalan yang pernah mengendalikan lampu pejalan kaki di bandar. Pemasa berkomputer, mereka telah memutuskan, hampir sentiasa bekerja lebih baik. Menjelang tahun 2004, kurang daripada 750 daripada 3,250 butang tersebut kekal berfungsi. Walau bagaimanapun, kerajaan bandar tidak membuang butang nyahdaya—berikan isyarat jari-jemari yang menekan sia-sia. Pada awalnya, butang tersebut kekal kerana kos untuk membuangnya. Tetapi ternyata butang yang tidak berfungsi juga berguna. Pejalan kaki yang menekan butang kurang cenderung menyeberang sebelum lelaki hijau itu muncul, kata Tal Oron-Gilad dari Universiti Ben-Gurion di Negev, di Israel. Setelah belajar tingkah laku di lintasan, dia menyedari bahawa orang lebih bersedia mematuhi sistem yang bermaksud memberi perhatian kepada input mereka. Butang tidak berfungsi menghasilkan kesan plasebo seperti ini kerana orang menyukai tanggapan mengawal ke atas sistem yang mereka gunakan, kata Eytan Adar, pakar dalam interaksi manusia-komputer di University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Dr Adar menyedari bahawa pelajarnya biasa mereka bentuk perisian dengan butang "simpan" boleh klik yang berperanan hanya untuk meyakinkan para pengguna yang tidak menyedari bahawa ketukan kekunci mereka disimpan secara automatik dalam apa cara sekali pun. Memikirkannya, dia berkata, sebagai sentuhan penipuan yang baik bagi menentang kedinginan dunia mesin. Itu adalah satu pandangan. Tetapi, sekurang-kurangnya untuk lintasan pejalan kaki, butang plasebo mungkin juga mempunyai sisi yang negatif. Ralf Risser, ketua FACTUM, sebuah institut Vienna yang mengkaji faktor-faktor psikologi dalam sistem lalu lintas, mengambil kira bahawa kesedaran pejalan kaki tentang kewujudan mereka, dan akibat rasa tidak puas hati terhadap penipuan, kini melebihi manfaat. |