Decision Paths

We live by the Thames Path. Our bit of it is closed at the moment for some building works. It's pretty well sign posted (as well as you'd expect) and the diversions are clearly marked. The diversion would be obvious to locals but the Thames Path gets much traffic from walkers and cyclists.

I've noticed something about peoples decision process when faced with this sign.

Everyone walks up to the sign, and the barriers, and peers round to see if it's true. Is the path really closed? Could I make it through? Whether they are a single walker, some elderly ramblers, a group of cyclists, American tourists or mums and buggies, everyone goes up to the sign to see if it's true.

Once they've established it is correct, they look around for an alternative route. If there is more than one person, some discussion ensues. Even though there is only one possible route round. It's sign posted and it's obvious, ie it's either follow the signs or go back the way you came.

So far everyone has done the same thing. But here's where something changes. The more people there are in the group the longer that decision takes. Every time. Direct correlation between people in group and time taken to discover the new route (even though it's sign posted).

Comments

[Tom Harle]

Do you think they'd behave differently if the alternative route was made even clearer? Just wondering if some sort of map sign showing the complete diversion would help people realise that walking round wasn't so bad.

[George Morgan]

This reminds of Horizon the other night, on how people react to disasters and emergencies.

It cited a study where people were asked to sit in a waiting room (under the pretence of the experiment not having started yet), which was slowly filled with smoke. People on their own quickly left and alerted someone. People in the room with actors, told to ignore the smoke, simply sat there, assuming 'someone else would do something'.

Probably something to do with people needing their actions validated when in groups etc.?

[Caspian]

Also known as The Division of Responsibility. i.e. the larger the group the smaller an individuals responsibility is to the group or his/her self. Oh, if only my psych professor could see me now…

[Simon]

Hard to trust a temporary sign.

[Tom]

Urban Runners like me don't need to heed those sorts of signs. I could just SWIM the fucking river anyway.

[Russell]

I agree with Simon, hard to trust temporary signs. As these signs can linger long after the work is complete and the path is open again.

In Japan they'd have paid some poor chap in a day glow jacket waving a flashing wand (like this - http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3181/2730411601_356348cf44.jpg?v=0 - sorry I didn't ask permission to use this) to tell you which way to go.

[Kathryn]

Interesting how long it takes for a person or people in a group to make a decision, but I like the idea that everyone doubts, disbelives or challenges the sign (the instructions) and has to go right up to it to see it and believe it. I like this aspect of human nature, of not just acting like automatons.

[Antonio]

I read somewhere that the collective IQ of a group is that of the "lest smart" member divided by the number of people that form it.

I totally agree.