The American psychology writer Daniel Pink collects examples of what he calls "emotionally intelligent signage" – notices in public places designed to forge an empathetic connection with the viewer. "Keep off the grass" is the exact opposite of emotionally intelligent: a barked command, with no reason given. At the other end of the scale are those American roadwork signs reading, "Please slow down, my dad works here." Humour's allowed, too (sign in a cafe: "Every time you tip, a Justin Bieber fan dies"). Personally, I'd be inclined to stretch the definition to include the anonymous geniuses who counter-demonstrated against Westboro Baptist Church – notorious wavers of placards reading "God Hates Fags" – with signs reading "God Hates Signs". An earnest counter-protest might have fuelled the Westboro bigots' sense of missionary zeal. But "God Hates Signs" seemed perfectly calculated to achieve its psychological goals: confusing the homophobes, while rendering them absurd in the eyes of everyone else.
There is a massive body of research about the psychological effects of signs, perhaps because they're an easy way to rope members of the public into an experiment without asking permission: erect a sign, stand somewhere inconspicuous, and watch how people respond. In general, it seems, we're pathetically obedient, queueing where we're told to queue, walking where we're told to walk, just because it's printed on a sign. (Would-be fascist dictators, take note.) Studies suggest "invoking norms" is a very effective tactic: to get people to reuse hotel towels, tell them lots of other guests do so. And specificity matters: asking hikers to keep to the footpath to preserve particular trees is better than asking them to protect the forest, which, in turn, is better than "save the planet".
Most intriguing, though, are those studies that demonstrate how often signs have the opposite effect from that intended. As Tom Vanderbilt wrote recently in Slate, traffic safety authorities now largely agree that "Slow: Children At Play" signs save few, if any, lives, lulling residents into imagining the risk is lower while subtly implying there's no need to watch out for children except close to the signs. And an Oxford University study published earlier this year found related "ironic effects" for No Smoking signs: seeing them, it concluded, prompts smokers to crave a smoke. Smokers shown photos with the sign in the background showed a more positive reaction to pictures of ashtrays and cigarettes. The signs may work in a narrow sense – preventing smoking where they're displayed – but only at the price of exacerbating the broader problem.
The No Smoking study highlights a problem with controlling people's behaviour that goes far beyond signage: to persuade people not to do something, you first have to raise the issue, thereby increasing its salience in their minds. The same hazard blights personal efforts at habit change: go on a diet, and suddenly you're thinking about food all the time. (That's why the best way to eliminate bad habits is to replace them with specific new habits.) Old-school self-help gurus would have you display signs on your bathroom mirror, with peppy messages to boost your self-esteem – but if all they do is remind you of your low self-esteem, they're worse than useless. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is to forget you had one. Whereas a notice just reminds you to notice.
oliver.burkeman@theguardian.com; twitter.com/oliverburkeman
