在很多年里，紐約市政部門(mén)逐步停用了該市控制人行橫道信號(hào)燈的大部分按鈕，但一直沒(méi)怎么聲張。他們認(rèn)定，計(jì)算機(jī)操控的計(jì)時(shí)器更好用。到了2004年，3250個(gè)按鈕中只剩不到750個(gè)還能發(fā)揮作用。但是，市政府并沒(méi)有拆除已經(jīng)沒(méi)用的那些按鈕，令無(wú)數(shù)手指白費(fèi)一番力氣。

Initially, the buttons survived because of the cost of removing them. But it turned out that even inoperative buttons serve a purpose. Pedestrians who press a button are less likely to cross before the green man appears, says Tal Oron-Gilad of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in Israel. Having studied behaviour at crossings, she notes that people more readily obey a system which purports to heed their input.
一開(kāi)始，按鈕被留下來(lái)是因?yàn)椴鸪某杀締?wèn)題。但后來(lái)卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，即使無(wú)法控制信號(hào)燈的按鈕也仍有用處。以色列本·古里安大學(xué)的塔勒·奧龍-吉拉德表示，按下按鈕的行人不太可能在綠色信號(hào)燈亮起前就橫穿馬路。研究過(guò)人們?cè)诼房诘男袨楹?，她注意到大家更傾向于服從一個(gè)聲稱(chēng)會(huì)聽(tīng)從他們的指令的系統(tǒng)。

Inoperative buttons produce placebo effects of this sort (the word placebo is Latin for “I shall be pleasing”) because people like an impression of control over systems they are using, says Eytan Adar, an expert on human-computer interaction at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr Adar notes that his students commonly design software with a clickable “save” button that has no role other than to reassure those users who are unaware that their keystrokes are saved automatically anyway. Think of it, he says, as a touch of benevolent deception to counter the inherent coldness of the machine world.
密歇根大學(xué)安娜堡分校的人機(jī)交互專(zhuān)家埃坦·埃達(dá)表示，失效的按鈕之所以會(huì)產(chǎn)生這種安慰劑效應(yīng)（placebo出自拉丁語(yǔ)，原意是“我會(huì)討人喜歡”），是因?yàn)槿藗兿矚g對(duì)自己所使用的系統(tǒng)有掌控感。他指出，自己的學(xué)生在設(shè)計(jì)軟件時(shí)經(jīng)常會(huì)加上一個(gè)可點(diǎn)擊的“保存”按鈕，但其實(shí)用戶(hù)的輸入都會(huì)自動(dòng)保存，這個(gè)“保存”按鈕僅僅是為了讓對(duì)此不知情的用戶(hù)放心而已。他說(shuō)，不妨將這視作對(duì)抗機(jī)器世界里固有的冷漠的一種善意欺騙。

That is one view. But, at road crossings at least, placebo buttons may also have a darker side. Ralf Risser, head of factum, a Viennese institute that studies psychological factors in traffic systems, reckons that pedestrians’ awareness of their existence, and consequent resentment at the deception, now outweighs the benefits.
這是一種觀點(diǎn)。但是，安慰劑按鈕可能也有不利的一面，至少在過(guò)馬路的問(wèn)題上是這樣。研究交通系統(tǒng)心理因素的維也納FACTUM研究所的負(fù)責(zé)人拉爾夫·里瑟爾認(rèn)為，行人意識(shí)到按鈕無(wú)效進(jìn)而感到被騙的怨怒，如今已讓這種做法弊大于利。

Something which happened in Lebanon supports that view. Crossing buttons introduced in Beirut between 2005 and 2009 proved a flop. Pedestrians wanted them to summon a “walk” signal immediately, rather than at the next appropriate phase in the traffic-light cycle, as is normal. The authorities therefore disabled them, putting walk signals on a preset schedule instead. Word spread that button-pressing had become pointless. The consequent frustration increased the amount of jaywalking, says Zaher Massaad, formerly a senior traffic engineer for the Lebanese government.
黎巴嫩發(fā)生的情況可引為佐證。2005年至2009年間在貝魯特引入的過(guò)街按鈕最后被證明是失敗的。行人希望按鍵后能立刻亮起“步行”信號(hào)，而不是像通常那樣等待交通燈的周期性轉(zhuǎn)換。因此市政部門(mén)停用了這些按鈕，按預(yù)設(shè)的時(shí)間啟動(dòng)步行信號(hào)。曾在黎巴嫩政府擔(dān)任高級(jí)交通工程師的查希爾·馬薩德說(shuō)，過(guò)街按鈕無(wú)用的消息傳開(kāi)，隨之而來(lái)的懊惱導(dǎo)致更多人亂穿馬路。

Beirut’s disabled buttons are, says Mr Massaad, now being removed. They should all be gone within three years. New York has similarly stripped crossings of non-functioning buttons, says Josh Benson, the city’s deputy commissioner for traffic operations, though it does retain about 100 working ones. These are in places where pedestrians are sufficiently rare that stopping the traffic automatically is unjustified. However, internet chatter about placebo buttons has become so common that doubt, albeit misguided, seems to be growing about even these functioning buttons’ functionality. This suspicion, says Mr Benson, has spread beyond New York, to include places such as Los Angeles, where almost all the crossing buttons have always worked, at least during off-peak hours.
馬薩德說(shuō)，貝魯特正在拆除無(wú)效的過(guò)街按鈕，三年內(nèi)應(yīng)該能全部清理完畢。紐約市交通運(yùn)營(yíng)處副處長(zhǎng)喬什·本森表示，紐約也拆除了無(wú)效的過(guò)街按鈕，但保留了大約100個(gè)有效的。這些按鈕都設(shè)置在行人稀少到已經(jīng)不適合使用自動(dòng)交通燈的地方。然而，網(wǎng)上對(duì)安慰劑按鈕的熱議，導(dǎo)致人們對(duì)有效的按鈕也開(kāi)始懷疑起來(lái)，盡管這是受到了誤導(dǎo)。本森表示，這種懷疑已蔓延到了紐約以外的地方，包括幾乎所有過(guò)街按鈕都總是有效（至少在非高峰時(shí)段是這樣）的洛杉磯。

Truth be told, though, the end may be nigh for all road-crossing buttons, placebo or real. At an increasing number of junctions, those waiting to cross can be detected, and even counted, using cameras or infrared and microwave detectors. Dynniq, a Dutch firm, recently equipped an intersection in Tilburg with a system that recognizes special apps on the smart phones of the elderly or disabled, and provides those people with 5 to 12 extra seconds to cross. That really will be pleasing.
但事實(shí)上，無(wú)論是安慰劑還是真的過(guò)街按鈕可能都會(huì)很快消亡。越來(lái)越多的道路交匯處配備了攝像頭或紅外和微波探測(cè)器，可探測(cè)甚至統(tǒng)計(jì)等待過(guò)馬路的行人。荷蘭科技公司Dynniq近年在蒂爾堡市的一個(gè)十字路口安裝了一套系統(tǒng)，能識(shí)別老年人或殘疾人智能手機(jī)上的專(zhuān)門(mén)應(yīng)用，為他們提供額外5到12秒的過(guò)馬路時(shí)間。這的確會(huì)很討人喜歡。