The Return Trip Effect: Why the Return Trip Often Seems Shorter






This article needs no motivation. The Return Trip Effect, which is the perception that the return trip seems shorter than the initial trip, even though the distance traveled and time spent traveling are identical, is observed by almost everyone I know.  I couldn't explain how this was possible until I recently came across a paper by Van de ven, Van Rijswijk, and Roy (2011), that we shall call VVR henceforth. 

The first possible reason for the return trip effect could be that the initial trip deals with an unfamiliar and unpredictable route, whereas the return trip is relatively more familiar and predictable. Research has shown that unfamiliar or unpredictable tasks are often remembered to be longer than familiar or predictable ones. The second reason is motivated by research that suggests that people often underestimate the time required for tasks. If this is the case, then people are likely to underestimate the time of their initial trip, and a deviation from this expectation is likely to make them think that the trip took long. They would then adjust their expectations for their return trip duration closer to the unexpectedly long time it took for the initial trip, and not meeting this higher expectation would make them think that the return trip was comparatively shorter.  

To test this Return trip effect, VVR set up 3 studies. In study 1, 69 participants who had just returned from a day trip by bus from a housekeeping fair or from a theme park were asked about their trip. Participants were asked which part of the trip they thought took longer, whether the initial trip took longer than the had expected and how many points on the way back they recognized. Analyzing the first and the second questions showed that the return trip effect was higher for people who rated the initial trip as taking longer than they had expected. Analyzing the third question showed that familiarity with the route and return trip effect were not related. 

In the second study by VVR, 93 first year students, at an event, had to travel by bike from a base camp to a nearby forest. They traveled in groups of 5-10 with a guide who knew the way.  Participants were randomly assigned to one of two routes of the same distance and that takes 35 minutes to travel on average. For the return trip, one group went back on the same route they came from while the other group went back on a different route. Both groups were asked their estimate in minutes, of the return trip. Overall, participants thought that the initial trip took about 7 and a half minutes longer than the return trip. The effect was similar for those who returned on the same route as their initial trip and for those who returned on a different route. This suggests that familiarity with the route doesn’t matter. Further, participants were also asked to indicate if the initial trip took longer than they had expected. Their responses were measured on a scale from -5 indicating "a lot shorter than expected" to +5 indicating "a lot longer than expected. On average, participants thought the initial trip took longer than expected. More interestingly, the degree to which a person's initial trip deviated from his expectation, was correlated with the return trip effect. 

In study 3, participants saw a video of a person going by bike from one place to another and then back. The time it took in the video for the initial trip and the return trip was exactly the same. This is a controlled environment in a lab and ensures that everyone receives the same stimulus.  A return trip effect was seen here as well.  

Overall, the return trip effect was found to be 17% in study 2 and 22% in study 3. There could be other possible reasons that have yet to be formulated and tested. For now, you can go to bed knowing at one of them. 

References:
The paper by Van de ven, Van Rijswijk, and Roy (2011) can be found here. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nudge to Prevent Food Wastage

Image
I found this board in a cafeteria at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.  The sign board mentions the wastage of food in weight (Kilograms) of the previous day and the number of people who could have been fed with that amount of food.  Although breakfast at the cafeteria is a limited serving, a considerable proportion of the people can't finish their meal. To know if the sign board indeed helps reduce wastage, there are several aspects that we need to consider. Firstly, the sign board can, as hoped, make people actively ask for the quantity of food that they think they can finish. This is troublesome for people who are new to the cafeteria. Regular customers, however,  would know exactly how much they would eat and would have no qualms in asking for a smaller quantity of food. Secondly, the sign board could also work as an incentive for people to try harder to finish all the food on their plate. Economists are probably the only ones wh...
Read more

Time saved by Touchscreen Laptop

The evolving technology has brought touch screen laptops to the market, but they are in general more expensive than the non-touch-screen laptops. Touch screen saves time but is more expensive. The amount you would save by not buying a touch screen laptop is clear but the time saved by buying a touchscreen laptop is rather obscure. The calculations that are about to follow will involve a prudent estimate, meant to identify the least possible time saved. The calculations are also a generalisation not backed by research. Let's assume you save one second per click by using the touchscreen interface rather than the mouse. Let's also assume you use the laptop for an hour a day making approximately 500 clicks per day. This means you would save 500 seconds per day. This implies that  you would save 3500 seconds a week, which is 58 minutes or about 1 hour a week. You would then save 4 hours a month and 36 hours a year. If you use your laptop for two hours a day all the above estim...
Read more

Should taller people pay a higher tax?

A cafe in Melbourne charges men an 18% higher rate than women, for the same food. The goal of this is to raise awareness about the gender earnings gap. The proceeds from the premiums are donated to various charities supporting women's causes. Higher prices for men can be seen as a "Man Tax". Would LOVE everyones thoughts on this. My friends cafe in #Brunswick , Handsom Her - is for women by women AND an has a 18% gender tax! pic.twitter.com/tVSX3PO4q8 — Paige Cardona 🏳️‍🌈 (@paigecardona) August 3, 2017 Studies find that a gender earnings gap does exist . But there are several other gaps.  Attractive  people earn a higher income. This is often referred to as "The Beauty Premium." Taller people are found to earn a higher income than shorter people. One study  proposes to include a height tax. Based on a data analysis of the existing height earnings gap, they propose that a tall person earning $50,000 should pay $4,500 more in tax than a short perso...
Read more