You thought that you were just joining a queue; in fact, you were taking part in a behavioural phenomenon that has nearly a century of academic research stacked up behind it. The past fortnight – during which there have been phenomenal queues for the opening of a Primark on Oxford Street, for a £5 cotton bag by the designer Anya Hindmarch for Sainsbury’s, and for the launch of Kate Moss’s range for Topshop – would have provided ample opportunity for social scientists to expand the literature on “queueing theory”.

This theory was born in 1915, when a Danish telephone engineer, Agner Erlang, tried to identify how callers dialling into an exchange should be prioritised. Since then it has blossomed into a serious discipline embracing both mathematics (the calculation of waiting times) and psychology (how people feel about queueing). It is the latter that preoccupies business. But scholarly investigation goes beyond studying disgruntled shoppers: Professor Richard Larson (known as Dr Queue), at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has studied whether queues at voting booths can affect the outcome of an election (conclusion: yes, if supporters of one party are more likely to queue than others). The research even boasts its own lexicon, comprising words such as balking (deciding not to join a queue) and reneging (joining, then leaving before being served).

Companies are quick to implement strategies that persuade customers that a) they are queueing for something worthwhile; b) they are waiting in an equitable queue (ie, the person who began queueing after you doesn’t get served before you); and c) the time spent queueing doesn’t feel like an eternity. The advance publicity for Hindmarch’s £5 bag and Moss’s glad rags – together with repeated assurances that the designs would not be repeated – ensured that a) was satisfied; the bag now fetches up to £200 on eBay. At Topshop, those waiting were issued with goodie bags, reinforcing the idea that trendy things come to those who wait.

The next condition is to ensure fairness for those in line. One method is to have a “combined queue” rather than multiple “single queues”: everyone joins one big queue, and when you get to the front you are allocated the first available server. This alleviates the irritation associated with choosing a slow-moving line. A dismal queueing experience can have a surprisingly negative psychological effect on consumers, even if the product or service for which they have been waiting is satisfactory (Ikea springs to mind).

Combined queues are on the increase in places such as banks, post offices and airport check-in desks. At airports, staff often precheck luggage and tickets; this doesn’t necessarily speed up service but it is an important acknowledgment of the customer. This first contact (turning a “preprocess wait” into an “in-process wait”) reassures customers that they are being attended to. Keeping a queue moving – by getting it to snake round a building, say – makes people feel that they are getting closer to being served, dampening anxiety and reducing reneging.

But the psychology of queueing has been most heavily devoted to c). How do you stop people growing bored or annoyed? The Disney Corporation is often cited as a pioneer here. Drawing on evidence that an unknown wait seems longer than a known one, it began flagging up approximate waiting times for its most popular attractions.

The practice soon spread worldwide. In the jargon, this manages a customer’s expectations: it lets them know what they’re in for. Announcing delays, as on trains, also mitigates frustration. And a diversion helps: researchers advise companies to “entertain, enlighten and engage” customers. Erecting TV screens or even, as one bank did, providing live lunchtime entertainment at its busiest New York branches, make waiting times seem shorter. Putting mirrors near lifts reduces complaints about waiting times – without actually shortening them.

The US Postal Service has followed the example of casinos by getting rid of clocks. “We want people to focus on postal service, not the clock,” says a spokesman. Professor Leonard Berry, a customer service expert at Texas A&M University, called the move silly: “I guess they think people don’t have watches.”

Times recommends

• Babyboomers still partying on in their sixties
• Do I have a chance of finding love again?
• Video: How to do party make-up