Evaluation of two methods of prompting drivers to use specific exits on conflicts between vehicles at the critical exit.
Gradual sign changes keep drivers calm; sudden swaps spark risky lane cuts.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Van Houten et al. (2005) watched drivers on a busy highway. They compared two ways to change exit signs when a lane had to close.
One method swapped the sign all at once. The other phased it in step-by-step. They counted how many cars cut across the gore at the last second.
What they found
Immediate sign changes caused a jump in dangerous lane cuts. Drivers seemed surprised and swerved late.
Phased changes kept the risky crossings low. Gradual cues gave drivers time to plan.
How this fits with other research
Hochmuth et al. (2020) extends the idea. They showed gateway signs at crosswalks. Yielding spread even to an untreated crossing next door. Both studies prove small sign tweaks can ripple through traffic.
Houten (1988) used sign prompts plus painted stop lines. Pedestrian-vehicle near-misses fell 80%. The pattern matches Ron et al.: clear prompts plus a little extra paint beat sudden changes.
Bennett et al. (1973) ran a similar alternating-treatments design in a grocery. A handbill prompt lifted returnable-bottle choices 25%. All three papers show the same core rule: give people a heads-up, and behavior shifts fast.
Why it matters
If you ever help clients cross busy lots or switch activities, phase the cue. Swap one visual prompt at a time instead of everything overnight. Drivers, kids, and shoppers all need that moment to adjust. Try fading the old sign over three steps next session; you may dodge the last-second bolt.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Fade visual cues in three steps instead of one big switch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The Florida Department of Transportation used a series of changeable-message signs that functioned as freeway guide signs to divert traffic to Universal Theme Park via one of two eastbound exits based on traffic congestion at the first of the two exits. An examination of crashes along the entire route indicated a statistically significant increase in crashes at the first eastbound exit following the actuation of the system. Furthermore, all of the crashes occurred in close proximity to the exit gore (the crosshatched area at exits that drivers are not supposed to enter or traverse) at the first exit. In Experiment 1, behavioral data were collected using an alternating treatments design. These data revealed that reassigning the exit signs was effective in producing a change in the percentage of drivers using each of the two exits. These data also showed that the reassignment of the theme park exit was associated with an increase in the percentage of motor vehicle conflicts that consisted of vehicles cutting across the exit gore. An analysis revealed that the method used for switching the designated or active theme park exit on the series of changeable-message signs led to the presentation of conflicting messages to some motorists, thus resulting in erratic driving behavior (cutting across the exit gore). In Experiment 2, the treatment evaluated the use of a phased method of switching the designated theme park exit to eliminate the delivery of conflicting messages. The new method for switching the designated theme park exit was not associated with an increase in motorists cutting across the exit gore.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2005 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.57-04