Jessica Cook, Emily Gothberg, Rose Richardson, and Reagan Styles Supervisor: Dr. Cecile Nowatka, Ph.D.

Transcription

1 Jessica Cook, Emily Gothberg, Rose Richardson, and Reagan Styles Supervisor: Dr. Cecile Nowatka, Ph.D.

2 Previous Literature Increase in use of cell phones while driving (Strayer & Johnston, 2001) Increased risk of crashes and injuries (Hafetz et al., 2010) Cognitive engagement, physical manipulation, and expectancies

3 Previous Literature (cont.) Multitasking (talking and driving) divides attention and impacts task performance Physical manipulation can distract during task Expectancies influence task engagement Example: Hands-free cell phone use is safer

4 Big Question Are hands-free cell phones safer? e.g. Zhou et al., 2009 Handheld and hands-free are equally distracting (Strayer & Johnston,2001) Reaction times and task accuracy impaired to the same degree

5 Purpose Evaluate the impact of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) on driving performance Examine how beliefs about driving influence actual task performance

6 Purpose (cont.) Computerized repetition-detection task IVs: Task, distractor, cell phone condition and expectancies DVs: Reaction time and accuracy

7 Hypotheses Better performance (accuracy and reaction time) in the easy repetitiondetection task Decreased performance as distractor difficulty increases No difference between handheld and hands-free groups Participants who do not expect driving impairment from cell phone use have decreased performance

8 Method Random and convenience sample of 50 college students Demographic questionnaire Expectancy scale Operation Span (Ospan)

9 Method (cont.) Computerized repetition-detection task Easy One-Series Hard Two-Series

10 Results Main effect of task for accuracy and reaction time Accuracy (%) Reaction Time (ms) Easy Task *** Hard 0 Easy Task* Hard

11 Results (cont.) Main effect of distractor for accuracy and reaction time Accuracy (%) Reaction Time (ms) None Shadow Generate 0 None Shadow Generate Distractors* Distractor**

12 Results (cont.) No main effect of hands-free vs. handheld for accuracy or reaction time Accuracy (%) Reaction Time (ms) Handheld Hands-free 0 Handheld Hands-free Cell Phone Condition Cell Phone Condition

13 Results (cont.) No expectancy effects found for reaction time or accuracy Significant three-way interaction for consequence Reaction Time Low Consequence Easy Task High Consequence Easy Task Low Consequence Hard Task High Consequence Hard Task 0 No distractor Shadowing Word generator Task

14 Discussion Hypotheses about task and distractor conditions were supported Lower accuracy and higher reaction time as task and distractor difficulty increased Hypothesis about cell phone condition was supported No difference of reaction time or accuracy in handheld and hands-free condition

15 Discussion (cont.) Hypothesis concerning expectancy effects was not supported Only found trends or three-way interactions, but no main effects of any expectancy composite variables

16 Limitations Power finding participants is difficult! Specialized population of college students Cellular telephones

17 Future Studies Future Studies- Age and gender Final Comments- Hands-free is not safer than handheld Task and distractor difficulty worsened performance Texting while driving

18 Thanks!! Dr. Nowatka Dr. Bopp Participants SEPA Conference 2013

19 References Hafetz, J.S., Jacobson, L.S., Garcia-Espana, J.F., Curry, A.E., & Winston, F.K. (2010). Adolescent drivers perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of abstention from invehicle cell phone use. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, Horrey, W.J., & Wickens, C.D. (2006). Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Drving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques. Human Factors, 1, Strayer, D.L., & Johnston, W.A. (2001). Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone. Psychological Science, 12, Zhou, R., Wu, C., Rau, P.P., & Zhang, W. (2009). Young driving learners intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving. Transportation Research Part F, 12,