A Psychological Look at Queues

1
A Psychological Look at Queues

• Professor Anat Rafaeli
• Greg Barron, Karen Cohen, Karen Haber, Efrat
  Kedmi, Dana Vashdi.
• Industrial Engineering and Management
• The Technion

2
??? ?????? ?? ?? ???????

• ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????
• ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????

90 ???????? ????? ????? ????
3
??? ?????? ?? ?? "?????????"

• ?????? ??????? ??????.
• ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???????.
• ?????? ??????.
• ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????.

4

• Queue design and management evokes customer and
  employee reactions !

Please wait. I am temporarily out of motivation.
5
Multiple ways to design a wait
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Design and time in queue expectations How long
do you expect to wait in different structure
queues?
Average Wait Expected Numbers 39 minutes Single
29 minutes Multiple 19 minutes
F(1)79.274 p 0.000
9
Design and preferences In which queue would you
rather wait?
Queue Preferation
Missing
4.7
Multiple Queue
23.6
?2 (2)32.099 p 0.000
Numbered Queue
56.6
Single Queue
15.1
N101
10
Queue Paradox

• People PREFER queues
• in which they expect a LONGER wait

Difficulties and Constraints of Intervening
factors in regular real life queue A New Paradigm
11
Research Paradigm

• Laboratory yet real wait conditions.
• Experimental manipulation of queue design.
• Full control of all wait aspects.
• Measurement before, during and after wait.

12
(No Transcript)
13
Progress in queue by clicking on icon
14
Real Time Measurement Anytime before, during
and after wait
15
Queues and Pleasantness

• Satisfaction improves with progress in queue
  equally in all designs.

Did you call for service?
16
Satisfaction Improves with Activity
Positive Attitudes Positive Attitudes Positive Attitudes Activity in Queue
F Mean Mean Activity in Queue
9.386 2.93 Activity related to wait
9.386 2.82 Activity not related to wait
9.386 2.05 No activity
17
FIFO and Fairness

• FIFO First In First Out
• Fairness Reported responses
• Was the wait method fair?
• Was there an appropriate method for determining
  order of service?
• Was the order of providing service to people fair?

18
People Notice FIFO !

• Multiple Queues
• with
• F-I-F-O violations more reported unfairness
  than Multiple Queues with no violations

19

• Irritation Leads to Feelings of Un-Fairness

20
Symbolic Fairness Effects Multiple Queue design
with no FIFO violations is mathematically
identical to a Single Queue
21
Symbolic Fairness Effects

• Multiple Queues with NO FIFO violationsMORE
  REPORTED UNFAIRNESSthan Single Queues

22
FIFO Violations in Queues

• Where? Who? When? Why?

23
Interruptions far away No effect on irritation
or fairness

• F (1) 0.803 n.s.

24
Interruption close by Queue is NOT fair!!
Interruption Close By
Interruption far away
F(1) 0.781 n.s.

• F(1) 7.892 plt0.01

25
FIFO Violation and Type of Queue?
Reported Fairness Reported Fairness Reported Fairness Type of Queue
Interaction Effect F (2,158) 2.997, plt0.05 Yes Interrupt to FIFO No Interrupt to FIFO Type of Queue
Interaction Effect F (2,158) 2.997, plt0.05 2.59 2.66 Multiple Queue
Interaction Effect F (2,158) 2.997, plt0.05 2.30 3.28 Single Queue
Interaction Effect F (2,158) 2.997, plt0.05 2.60 3.21 Numbered Queue
26
Queue as an Implicit Contract

• Single and Numbered Queue is Interpreted as a
  Contract for FIFO
• FIFO Violations Significantly More Annoying

27
Institutionalized FIFO ViolationsVIP Multiple
Queue
28
VIP Queues and Fairness

• Reported fairness significantly lower with VIP
  Queue than with Multiple QueueMean
  VIP-Queue2.7
• Mean Multiple Queue3.44
• t (36 ) 2.51, plt .05

29
Opportunity to Pay and Fairness

• Offer to pay for VIP serviceINCREASES REPORTED
  FAIRNESS although
• FIFO
• perceptions drop

Before VIP Offer After VIP Offer
Fair-ness 2.7 3.4 Plt.01
FIFO? 4.1 3.0 Plt.01
30
Telephone WaitingAnat Rafaeli and Nira Munichor
31

• Telephone waiting is an annoyance that can be
  reduced psychologically

Music ? Apologies ? Queue information ? Service
activities ?
32
Activities While Waiting?
33
Results

• Abandonment rate
• Waiting evaluation

?² (3) 12.035 , plt.01, Phi.27
F (3,63)5.525, plt.005, ?².21
34
Phi.21 P.071 ?² (1) 3.26 Abandoned N
Phi.21 P.071 ?² (1) 3.26 69.4 36 Music
Phi.21 P.071 ?² (1) 3.26 48.6 37 Activities
Phi.335 plt.005 ?² (1) 8.441 Abandoned N
Phi.335 plt.005 ?² (1) 8.441 69.4 36 Music
Phi.335 plt.005 ?² (1) 8.441 35.9 39 Information
Phi.13 n.s ?² (1) 1.266 48.6 37 Activities
Phi.13 n.s ?² (1) 1.266 35.9 39 Information
35

• Self Report
• Waiting Evaluation

Plt.001 Tukeys HSD 5.502 SD Mean N
Plt.001 Tukeys HSD 5.502 745. 2.5833 16 Apology
Plt.001 Tukeys HSD 5.502 834. 3.8194 13 Information
(No significant differences between other
conditions )
36
Tele-Waiting
Progress Toward Goal Improves Reactions
No Sense of Progress Music Apologies
Sense of Progress Queue Info Activities while
Waiting
37
(No Transcript)