This research examined informational nudges delivered as messages for their ability to affect traveler choices on freeways with express lanes (ELs) as well as characteristics of travelers that may indicate a greater or lesser proclivity to take action based on those nudges. The message-based nudges focused on travel times, travel speeds, and their variability on both the ELs and the general-purpose lanes (GPLs). Travelers’ standard sociodemographic characteristics (such as age and income) along with psychological characteristics (individual differences) hypothesized to influence EL choice (e.g., risk tolerance, need for cognitive closure [NFCC]) were examined. Participant’s ranking of the messages revealed that travel time-related messages were more influential than the speed-related messages in lane choice. In addition, prospective messages concerning potential future travel were more effective than retrospective messages. This study also demonstrated that the factors influencing decisions varied between different groups of people, with congestion and price being more critical for travelers who often make conscious decisions on which lanes to use. The study also identified conscientiousness, maximization, and NFCC as important indicators of lane choice behavior. Understanding these factors can help in framing effective nudges for travelers facing lane choice decisions, including delivering messages that make travelers more likely to consider their travel choices.
AartsH.VerplankenB.Van KnippenbergA.Predicting Behavior from Actions in the Past: Repeated Decision Making or a Matter of Habit?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 1355–1374.
6.
RosenfieldA.AttanucciJ. P.ZhaoJ.A Randomized Controlled Trial in Travel Demand Management. Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2020, pp. 1907–1932.
7.
KormosC.SussmanR.RosenbergB.How Cities Can Apply Behavioral Science to Promote Public Transportation Use. Behavioral Science and Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2021, pp. 95–115.
BonsallP.The Influence of Route Guidance Advice on Route Choice in Urban Networks. Transportation, Vol. 19, 1992, pp. 1–23.
13.
ChatterjeeK.HounsellN.FirminP.BonsallP.Driver Response to Variable Message Sign Information in London. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2002, pp. 149–169.
14.
DiaH.PanwaiS.Modelling Drivers’ Compliance and Route Choice Behaviour in Response to Travel Information. Nonlinear Dynamics, Vol. 49, 2007, pp. 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/18128600903200596.
15.
ErkeA.SagbergF.HagmanR.Effects of Route Guidance Variable Message Signs (VMS) on Driver Behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2007, pp. 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2007.03.003.
16.
TsirimpaA.PolydoropoulouA.Travelers’ Response to VMS in the Athens Area. Research in Transport and Logistics, 2009, pp. 179.
17.
BonsallP.PalmerI.VMS Signs: The Importance of Phrasing the Message. In EmmerinkR.NijkampP., eds., Behavioural and Network Impacts of Driver Information Systems. John Wiley, London, 1998.
18.
LiX.CaoY.ZhaoX.XieD.Drivers’ Diversion from Expressway under Real Traffic Condition Information Shown on Variable Message Signs. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, 2015, pp. 2262–2270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-014-0692-y.
19.
Samimi AbianehA.BurrisM.TalebpourA.SinhaK.The Impacts of Connected Vehicle Technology on Network-Wide Traffic Operation and Fuel Consumption under Various Incident Scenarios. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2020, pp. 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2020.1735752.
20.
ChryslerS. T.NelsonA. A.Driver Comprehension of Managed Lane Signing. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2009. FHWA/TX-09/0-5446-3.
21.
SadeghvaziriE.HaleemK.AlluriP.FartashH.GanA.Effects of Different Guide Signs on Driver Behavior at Express Lane Entrance: A Driving Simulation Study. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
22.
AlluriP.GanA.SahaD.FernandezL. O.Evaluation of Signage Alternatives for Express Lane Facilities: Focus Group Study. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2616, No. 1, 2017, pp. 114–121.
23.
KuhnB. T.HigginsL.NelsonA.FinleyM. D.UllmanG. L.ChryslerS.WunderlichK.ShahV.DudekC. L.Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Disseminating Traveler Information on Travel Time Reliability. SHRP 2 Report S2-L14-RW-1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014.
24.
DevarasettyP. C.BurrisM.ArthurW.Jr.Mc DonaldJ.MuñozG. J. Can Psychological Variables Help Predict the Use of Priced Managed Lanes?Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 22, 2014, pp. 25–38.
25.
BurrisM.ArthurW.DevarasettyP. C.McDonaldJ.MuñozG. J. Understanding Traveler Behavior: The Psychology Behind Managed Lane Use. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 2012. University Transportation Center for Mobility, UTCM #11-07-66.
26.
ArthurW.Jr. An Unproctored Internet-Based Test of General Mental Ability: A Validation Report. College Station, TX, 2017.
27.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T.Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across Instruments and Observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1987, pp. 81–90.
28.
RoetsA.Van HielA.Item Selection and Validation of a Brief, 15-Item Version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2011, pp. 90–94.
29.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E.Assessing Miserly Information Processing: An Expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking and Reasoning, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2014, pp. 147–168.
30.
SchwartzB.WardA.MonterossoJ.LyubomirskyS.WhiteK.LehmanD. R.Maximizing versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 5, 2002, pp. 1178–1197.
31.
EckelC. C.GrossmanP. J.Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1–17.
32.
CabralesA.EspínA. M.KujalP.RassentiS.Trustors’ Disregard for Trustees Deciding Quickly or Slowly in Three Experiments with Time Constraints. Scientific Reports, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2022, p. 12120.
33.
CapraroV.CorgnetB.EspínA. M.Hernán-GonzálezR.Deliberation Favours Social Efficiency by Making People Disregard Their Relative Shares: Evidence from USA and India. Royal Society Open Science, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2017, p. 160605.
34.
De KeersmaeckerJ.DunningD.PennycookG.RandD. G.SanchezC.UnkelbachC.RoetsA.Investigating the Robustness of the Illusory Truth Effect across Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability, Need for Cognitive Closure, and Cognitive Style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2020, pp. 204–215.
ViatorR. E.WuY. J.ViatorA. S.Testing the Validity and Reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test-2021: An Updated Behavioral Measure of Reflection–Impulsivity. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, 2022, p. 977808.
37.
BurnsG. N.MorrisM. B.PeriardD. A.LaHuisD.FlanneryN. M.CarrettaT. R.RoebkeM.Criterion-Related Validity of a Big Five General Factor of Personality from the TIPI to the IPIP. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 25, No. 3, 2017, pp. 213–222.
38.
GoldbergL. R.A Broad-Bandwidth, Public Domain, Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-Level Facets of Several Five-Factor Models. Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1999, pp. 7–28.
39.
GeorgeF.Fake It to Make It: A Further Examination of the Susceptibility of Construct-Laden Situational Judgment Tests to Socially Desirable Responding. Master’s thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2020. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/192954.
40.
MeadeA. W.PappalardoG.BraddyP. W.FleenorJ. W.Rapid Response Measurement: Development of a Faking-Resistant Assessment Method for Personality. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2020, pp. 181–207.
41.
MihmD.VIE-ing for the Position: An Examination of theMotivational Antecedents of Response Distortion. Electronic Theses and Dissertations, University of Central Florida, 2017. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/5415.
42.
RossenE.KranzlerJ. H.Incremental Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0 (MSCEIT) after Controlling for Personality and Intelligence. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2009, pp. 60–65.
43.
VispoelW. P.LeeH.ChenT.HongH.Using Structural Equation Modeling to Reproduce and Extend ANOVA-Based Generalizability Theory Analyses for Psychological Assessments. Psych, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2023, pp. 249–273.
44.
ArthurW.Jr.SchulteB. D.GeorgeF.Jr.MendozaA. M.HagenE.JacobsR. R. An Examination of the Effects of Multiple-Choice Item Writing Quality on Test Performance: Differential Effects on Subgroups? Manuscript submitted for publication, 2023.
45.
ArthurW.Jr.SchulteB. D.KeiserN. L.TraylorZ.GeorgeF.Jr.Examination of the Effectiveness of the After-Action Review as a Means of Mitigating the Adverse Effects of Team Member Substitution on Team Performance. Manuscript in preparation, 2023.
46.
ArthurW.Jr.WilliamsA. S.MazzaN.ParkB.TraylorZ.EdwardsB. D.Cognitive Ability score Differences on Unproctored Internet-Based Tests: Self-Selection or Device-Type Effects? Manuscript in preparation, 2023.
47.
GeorgeF.Jr.ArthurW.Jr.Examining the Susceptibility of Construct-Laden Situational Judgment Tests to Socially Desirable Responding. Presented at the 36th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Virtual, 2021.
48.
MazzaN.SchulteB. D.FengK.ChaspariT.ArthurW.Jr.Examining the Validity of Physiological and Bio-Behavioral Measures of Anxiety. Manuscript in preparation, 2023.
49.
MazzaN.SchulteB. D.HagenE.SridharS.ChaspariT.ArthurW.Jr. Trait Anxiety and Emotional Stability: Redundant or Incrementally Valid?Poster presented at Texas A&M University Student Research Week, College Station, TX, 2022.
50.
NaberA. M.ArthurW.Jr.EdwardsB. D.Franco-WatkinsA.Increased Retest scores on Cognitive Tests: Memory or Learning Effects? Manuscript submitted for publication, 2023.
51.
CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.LilienfeldS. O.“Escape from Freedom”: Authoritarianism-Related Traits, Political Ideology, Personality, and Belief in Free Will/Determinism. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 86, 2020, p. 103957.
52.
KsiazkiewiczA.LudekeS.KruegerR.The Role of Cognitive Style in the Link Between Genes and Political Ideology. Political Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2016, pp. 761–776.
53.
LarsenM. Z.HauptM. R.McMannT.CuomoR. E.MackeyT. K.The Influence of News Consumption Habits and Dispositional Traits on Trust in Medical Scientists. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 20, No. 10, 2023, p. 5842.
54.
MaxfieldM.CuiR.RobertsJ. R.FiskeA.Interest in Dementia Testing: Family History, Dementia-Related Anxiety, and Coping. GeroPsych: The Journal of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2021, pp. 5–11.
55.
NilssonA.JostJ. T.Rediscovering Tomkins’ Polarity Theory: Humanism, Normativism, and the Psychological Basis of Left-Right Ideological Conflict in the US and Sweden. PLoS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2020, e0236627.
56.
Schommer-AikinsM.EasterM.Cognitive Flexibility, Procrastination, and Need for Closure Linked to Online Self-Directed Learning among Students Taking Online Courses. Journal of Business and Educational Leadership, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2018, pp. 112–123.
57.
TaylorA. M.Need for Cognition and Need for Closure: Two Potential Moderators of Systematic Blame Updating. Master’s thesis. Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, 2022.
58.
BallS.EckelC. C.HeracleousM.Risk Aversion and Physical Prowess: Prediction, Choice, and Bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 41, 2010, pp. 167–193.
59.
GrossmanP. J.Holding Fast: The Persistence and Dominance of Gender Stereotypes. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2013, pp. 747–763.
60.
AshrafS.BrownA. L.BurrisM. W.VitakuV.Aggregate and Individual Effects of Information in a Coordination (Traffic) Game. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 61, No. 4, 2023, pp. 818–850.
