Cognitive Sciences Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Many people, particularly those in a rush, keep on pressing the elevator call button despite the light clearly indicating that it was previously pressed, and the knowledge that such action will have no effect.

What theory explains such a behaviour?

I could put forth two hypotheses. When people are desperate they:

  • Prefer action over inaction - If an action does not carry a high price or penalty, by taking action people feel that at least they are doing something.
  • Are more likely to change their beliefs. Complete atheists, for instance, may pray to God, or try a supernatural/spiritual healer, if the life of a dear one is on stake.

But I can't find a theory for neither of these.

A women pressing a lift call button

share|improve this question
Elevator where i live is paid. you must drop coin to make it work. i just kick it and it works for free - probably it is shortening contacts or whatever – user3485 Sep 2 '13 at 9:31
Do you kick it more times when you are in a hurry? – no comprende May 16 at 2:42
up vote 7 down vote accepted

It's an interesting phenomena. And I think it can be seen in many other domains beyond lifts. At least where I live, pedestrian crossings have buttons, which I've seen people repeatedly press. You can see it often on computers and other digital devices when the system does not immediately respond to user input.

Basic Bayesian Rational Actor

My starting point for analysing the behaviour would be that of a bayesian rational actor. While you state that the individual "knows that such action will have no effect." This is not actually true. Many states of the world are possible about the consequence of second and subsequent button presses:

  • Beneficial:

    • The first button press may not have been recorded (perhaps you didn't press the button correctly, perhaps the system malfunctioned)
    • Repeatedly pressing the button might increase the system's awareness of the importance of the request
    • The first button press may have timed-out and a second button press may resend the request
  • Makes no difference:

    • The first button press has been recorded and the second button press makes no difference.
  • Detrimental:

    • The first button press was recorded. Any subsequent button press resets the time required for

So from the perspective of a Bayesian rational actor, the individual does not know the state of the world. Instead, each state has a certain probability of being true. And each state of the world has a certain cost/benefit. Thus, if the individual assigns very low probability to the detrimental option and no or minimal cost to the physical movement of the pressing, and some small probability of any of the beneficial scenarios being true, then the beneficial scenarios have the greatest expected utility. This is despite the fact that the "makes no difference scenario" having very high probability of being true.

The important point is that it is the subjective beliefs and subjective utility which drives action and not the objective state of the world. Most models of human action would also incorporate a random component. So even if people generally preferred not to do the repeated press, they might occasionally. Such randomness can be seen as rational behaviour in the broader sense, in that it allows the actor to sample the utilities associated with actions even if they aren't currently deemed to maximise utility.

Presumably many factors would influence the beliefs about truth and utility in this situation:

  • The clearer the indicator that the button has been pressed, the more likely the individual will believe that the button has been pressed. So for example, on some pedestrian crossings there is no indicator light, or sometimes the indicator light on a lift button stops working. In such cases, people would presumably be much more likely to repeatedly press.
  • The more experience someone has with the specific lift or even lifts in general, the less likely they are to draw on general experience with other lifts or with other button-based systems.
  • The longer the time passes between pressing the button and the lift not arriving, the more likely the individual is to believe that something has failed. Now in some cases this is a lift malfunction, but presumably often another button press would also seem like a more reasonable strategy than if little time has passed.
  • The cost is assigned to the physical press might vary between people and situations. Some might experience minor social embarrassment of repeatedly pressing a lift button when others are present. Other people who are less energetic or active, may not wish to expend energy repeatedly pressing the lift button.

Further reading

If you're interested more about these ideas, you could check out some of the ACT-R research on strategy selection.

share|improve this answer
Perhaps engineers can add a pleasing bell to the first push confirming the result and a negative bell for any subsequent action. (Assuming that it makes no difference) – Mallow Nov 20 '14 at 18:41

Well, actually I have often had the experience that buttons on appliances signal that they have been pressed but nevertheless the appliance does not react. For example, right here under my computer is an external hard disk. A light glows when I press the on/off button. Still, the hard disk does not turn on about 80% of the time, when I press the button (the light glows each time!). So I keep pressing until it reacts. This experience makes me not trust the light on other appliances. I guess the button has to close two circuits, one of which has a better contact than the other.

share|improve this answer
I would get a different hard drive. What if the button stops working entirely? Your data will never arrive. – no comprende May 16 at 2:44

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.