Effects of response cost on the behavior of a million persons: charging for directory assistance in Cincinnati.

The city of Cincinnati started charging 20 cents for every directory-assistance call.

The phone company tracked all calls over the study period before and after the fee began.

One million residents were watched, not asked. No clinic, no consent forms.

Calls dropped a large share the first night and stayed low for the full year.

Long-distance calls that stayed free did not change.

Money acted like an off switch for a whole city’s habit.

Fontes et al. (2018) showed that punishment can bring back an old problem. They punished lab pigeons for pecking a new key and the old, extinguished key pecking returned. The Cincinnati study never checked for this bounce-back, so watch for it if you ever remove a response cost.

Preston (1994) saw behavioral contrast in a money game. When one stock stopped paying, people poured money into the other stock. Cincinnati saw no such jump because no free calling option stayed open.

Austin et al. (2015) taught us that tokens do many jobs at once. The 20-cent charge worked the same way: it was both a fine and a clear signal that the call would cost you.

If you need to cut a behavior fast, a small fee can do the heavy lifting. Think charging a quarter for each prompt repeat, or a dollar for every late report. Keep the cost tiny, clear, and immediate. Track for resurgence later—what drops fast can pop back up just as fast.