TEEN TEXTING WHILE DRIVING: FACTORS INFLUENCING THIS EPIDEMIC BEHAVIOR

Transcription

1 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1647 TEEN TEXTING WHILE DRIVING: FACTORS INFLUENCING THIS EPIDEMIC BEHAVIOR Maranda McBride North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University Lemuria Carter Virginia Commonwealth University This study was designed to identify key components that affect teenagers intent to text while driving by developing and administering a survey to identify psychological profiles of teenagers who are more or less likely to comply with TWD laws. Such profiles may be used to create unique TWD law compliance training protocols designed to address specific teenager characteristics. The method included the administration of a 108-item Likert-scale survey to young drivers age 15 through 21. The survey consisted of a set of demographic questions; a Big Five personality assessment; and items to assess attitudes, norms, and perceptions associated with TWD. The results of the regression analysis performed on the data indicate the following factors potentially impact teenager TWD behavior: perceived behavioral control, subjective norm, and TWD concealment attitude. Keywords: safety, transportation, personality, norms, attitude Copyright 2016 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI / INTRODUCTION Inexperienced drivers have a tendency to underestimate the risks associated with being preoccupied while driving and, thus, are more likely to drive while distracted (Kahn et al., 2015). In a study published by the AAA Foundation in 2015, cell phone use was determined to be the second most common form of distracted behavior teenage drivers were engaged in right before they crashed (Green, 2015). Liz Marks is one such teenager who underestimated the risks of using her cell phone while driving. Her decision to read a text while driving resulted in a crash that severely impaired her vision, hearing, and sense of smell permanently. She is also no longer able to produce tears on her own or fall asleep without medicinal assistance (Kahn et al., 2015). Texting is one of the most common cell phone operations performed by teenagers and a 2011 survey found that 44.5% of high school students admit to texting while driving (Olsen et al., 2013). Therefore, it is important that we determine which methods are most effective at deterring teenagers from texting while driving (TWD). It is well known that individuals differ in terms of what they perceive to be important and what is likely to motivate them to act in a particular way. For instance, Cazzulino et al. (2014) conducted a review to determine what factors appear to impact drivers decision to use a cell phone while driving and found several factors, including individual differences, which appear to influence driver s decisions to engage in these unsafe behaviors. For this reason, we posit that certain individual differences, especially those related to teenage drivers beliefs and general personality should be taken into consideration when it comes to developing methods to deter TWD behavior. One of the most popular theories often utilized to link beliefs and behavior is the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), behavioral attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control affect behavioral intention, which in turn affects actual behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Atchley et al. (2012) suggest the intention to perform a behavior, such as using a cellular device while driving, is influenced directly by perceived norms, as well as attitudes and perceived control over the behavior. In the case of TWD, subjective norms relate to the social pressure that an individual views to be associated with the performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 1991) as well as the individual s perception of the expectations of their loved ones that they will follow specific standards that have been set (Trafimow & Moroi, 1999). Attitude refers to an individual s assessment of how positive or negative the behavior under consideration is evaluated to be (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral control involves the person s view of how easy or difficult it is to perform the behavior in question and is often influenced by previous experiences and obstacles that must be overcome to perform the behavior (Gauld et al., 2014). While TPB was the primary framework for our study, we extended this framework to include additional predictors found in the literature in order to develop a more comprehensive model that links other categories of beliefs potentially associated with TWD behavior. The

2 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1648 additional factors were: group norm, moral norm, and TWD concealment attitude. Group norms are those associated with the expectations of specific groups to which the individual belongs (Ajzen, 1991). These can be ethnic groups, age groups, gender, etc. Moral norms relate to an individual s value system which is used during the establishment of their sense of right and wrong, good and bad (Gauld et al., 2014). These moral norms are typically based on what society perceives to be ethical given the specific context in which the behavior is to be performed. These two norms as well as the TPB constructs have been used by other researchers for studies related to college age drivers (Bazargan- Hejazi et al., 2016). TWD concealment attitude captures how teens feel about concealing their TWD behaviors from others (Gauld et al., 2014). We chose to include this factor in our survey because many teenagers who do engage in TWD do so in such a way that others are not likely to notice what they are doing in hopes of not being caught, punished, and/or reprimanded. Based upon literature associated with cell phone use and risk taking behaviors, four other constructs were added to the survey in order to capture some of the other elements that appear to influence teenage drivers decisions to text while driving. These factors were mobile phone involvement, anticipated regret, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of abstention from TWD. Mobile phone involvement was added to account for what appears to be teenagers addiction to their cell phones (i.e., they become anxious when separated from their cell phones, even for short periods of time). It also accounts for the fact that cell phones (particularly smart phones) are used for many other purposes outside of communicating with others (Gauld et al., 2014). Gauld et al. (2014) found that participants who scored higher on mobile phone involvement, suggesting they have higher levels of behavioral and cognitive association with their phones, were more likely to text in a concealed manner while driving. Anticipated regret is used to measure the likelihood that a teenager will feel bad if they performed an unacceptable or illegal act (Gauld et al., 2014). Perceived advantages and disadvantages of abstention were added to the research model to account for research findings that suggest TWD behavior is impacted by an individual s belief that not engaging in TWD will have either positive or negative consequences, respectively (Hafetz et al., 2010). In addition to the traditional TPB items and the seven additional factors believed to influence TWD behavior, we were also interested in determining if any personality traits were related to a teenager s tendency to text while driving. Previous studies have found a connection between certain personality traits and risk taking behaviors such as gambling (Mecca, 2003) and substance abuse (Huth-Bocks, 1996). While there are several personality assessments that could have been used for this study, we chose to focus on the Big 5 personality traits. The Big 5 personality traits include openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Individuals who have high openness scores tend to be imaginative, curious, and creative. Those with high conscientiousness scores are typically punctual, well-organized, and conscientious. Extroverted individuals are often found to be talkative, affectionate, and outgoing while agreeable individuals are typically trusting, lenient, and good-natured. Individuals with high neuroticism scores are characterized as worriers, temperamental, and emotional. This set of personality traits has been used in several computer technology-focused research studies (e.g. Buchanan et al., 2005; Engelberg and Sjoberg, 2004; Swickert, et al., 2002; Landers and Lounsbury, 2006) and, thus, was deemed appropriate for this study. METHOD Online Survey Development Using the constructs of interest gleaned from the literature review, the research model shown in Figure 1 was developed for the study. In this study, the fifteen factors previously identified serve as the independent variables and the dependent variable is Intent to text while driving. Items from existing survey instruments were adapted when necessary to fit the context of our research model. All of these survey instruments had been validated; however, we also performed our own validation of the final survey instrument items as well. Figure 1: Research model linking the Big Five and extended TPB factors with TWD intention The list below shows the number of questions associated with each of the model constructs: Openness 8 Conscientiousness 5 Extroversion 5

3 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1649 Agreeableness 5 Neuroticism 5 General TWD Attitude 5 TWD Concealment Attitude 4 Perceived Disadvantages of Abstention 11 Perceived Advantages of Abstention 7 Anticipated Regret 2 Mobile Phone Involvement 8 Perceived Behavioral Control 3 Group Norm 3 Subjective Norm 3 Moral Norm 3 Intent to TWD 3 With the exception of the group norm and TWD concealment attitude items, each item was rated on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represented strongly disagree and 5 represented strongly agree. The scale for the for the group norm items used 1 to represent none and 5 to represent all. For the TWD Concealment Attitude items, each item had a different semantic scale. Table 1 provides one question associated with each of the constructs tested. Table 1: Sample survey questions Construct Openness Conscientiousness Extroversion Agreeableness Neuroticism General TWD Attitude TWD Concealment Attitude Perceived Disadvantages of Abstention Perceived Advantages of Abstention Anticipated Regret Mobile Phone Involvement Perceived Behavioral Control Group Norm Subjective Norm Moral Norm Intent to TWD Sample Question Is inventive. Is a reliable worker. Is outgoing, sociable. Has a forgiving nature. Worries a lot. It is unsafe to text while driving. For me, texting in a concealed manner while driving in the next week would be: Good (1) Bad (5) I think the good things that might happen if I do not text while driving are: I could not check with someone if I got lost or forgot something. I think the good things that might happen if I do not text while driving are: I would be able to pay better attention to my driving. If I text in the next week I would feel regret. I interrupt whatever else I am doing when I am contacted on my mobile phone. I am confident that I could text while driving and still drive safely. How many of your friends and peers would think texting while driving is a good thing to do? Most people important to me would want me to text while driving in the next week. It would be against my principles to text while driving. It is likely that I will text while driving in the next week. There were also 5 screening questions (age, motor vehicle use, driving frequency, cell phone ownership, and driver s license status), 3 demographic questions (gender, race/ethnicity, and grade), and 20 driving and texting history questions included in the survey as well. The survey items were presented in blocks based on the following order: 1) screening/demographic questions (fixed order), 2) driving/texting history questions (fixed order), 3) Big Five personality assessment (random order), and 4) extended TPB items (random order). Prior to being presented the screening/demographic questions, participants provided their informed consent after reading the project description and Institutional Review Board (IRB) information. Sample Population The survey was administered online and completed by 105 teenage and young adult drivers. All of the respondents met all of the screening criteria: had a driver s license or learner s permit, owned a cell phone, and drove regularly. Eighty percent of the respondents who met the qualifying criteria were age 15 through 19 years old and 20% were 20 or 21 years old. Twentynine of the respondents were male and 76 were female. Sixty-three percent of the respondents were Caucasian, 16% were Black/African American, and 5% were Hispanic/Latino. Survey Validation The survey items were tested for reliability and the convergent and discriminant validity was also assessed for each factor. Cronbach s alpha was used to test the reliability for all of the 15 constructs in the model (Cronbach, 1970). Based on this test, if Cronbach s alpha for a specific construct was less than 0.70, it was dropped from the final analysis. However, if the minimum criteria could be achieved by dropping one or more items while maintaining at least 2 items, only the items that were deemed unreliable were dropped, not the entire construct. Using this criteria, all three group norm items were dropped since no combination of two or more of the items resulted in the minimum statistic. One of the three perceived behavioral control items was eliminated. In addition, anticipated regret was not analyzed because the wording of one of the items was incorrect so it had to be removed leaving only one item to measure that construct. To assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the extended TPB items, a principal component analysis with Equamax rotation was used. Most items loaded on the proper construct; however, some items were dropped from further analysis because they crossloaded with another construct. The following is a list of the number of items dropped from the various constructs:

4 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1650 Moral Norm 1 item, Mobile Phone Involvement 2 items, General TWD Attitude 2 items, Perceived Advantages of Abstention 2 items, and Perceived Disadvantages of Abstention 2 items. In addition, the items used to measure Perceived Disadvantages of Abstention were split into two groups based on the validity test results. The first group of items related to emergency communication needs while the second group was related to general texting needs. The convergent and discriminant validity of the Big Five items were assessed using a principal component analysis with Varimax rotation. As with the extended TPB constructs, most items loaded on the proper factor; however, two Agreeableness items were dropped due to cross-loading issues. Perceived Behavioral Control, TWD Concealment Attitude, and Subjective Norm. Table 2: Final Regression Variables Factor Min Max Mean St Dev Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism General TWD attitude TWD concealment attitude Perceived disadvantages of abstention General Perceived disadvantages of abstention Emergency Perceived advantages of abstention Mobile phone involvement Perceived behavioral control Subjective norm Moral norm Intent to TWD RESULTS Following the survey validation process, the research model was tested using multiple linear regression analysis. The model included thirteen independent variables (Openness, Consciousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, General TWD Attitude, TWD Concealment Attitude, Perceived Disadvantages of Abstention, Perceived Advantages of Abstention, Mobile Phone Involvement, Perceived Behavioral Control, Subjective Norm, Moral Norm). Group Norm was not included since it did not pass the reliability test and Anticipated Regret was not included because it had only one usable item. The dependent variable chosen for this analysis was Intent to Text While Driving. A paired t-test was performed in which the score for one of the texting history questions (i.e., How often do you send a text while driving? ) and the average TWD Intent score, were compared. The results of this analysis suggests that there is no significant difference between the scores for the actual behavior and intent questions (mean = 1.97 and 1.97, respectively; p- value = 1.0). Therefore, based on the data collected, we concluded that intent could be used to accurately predict behavior. Table 2 lists the basic characteristics of both the independent and dependent variables. Based on the regression analysis, the model explains approximately sixty-eight percent of the variance in TWD behavior (adjusted R² = 0.677). Since the overall model was significant (F=73.555, p <0.0001), we tested the significance of each variable and found that three factors appear to have a significant impact on teenage drivers intent to text while driving (see Figure 2): Figure 2: Significant results with path coefficients DISCUSSION The results of the data analysis suggests that there is enough evidence to support the premise that specific individual differences make certain teenagers more prone to text while driving than others. For instance, those teenagers who believe they are able to drive safely while texting and those who feel that their loved ones do not have a problem with them texting while driving are more likely to do so. On the other hand, those teenagers who perceive concealed texting and driving negatively, were less likely to engage in the behavior. Based on these findings, some suggestions can be made regarding training targeting teenage drivers. First, in order to help teenagers understand the real hazards associated with texting while driving, it may be necessary for them to actually experience the dangers for themselves. Therefore, providing medium or high fidelity driving simulations that allow teenagers to text and drive in realistic, yet controlled, environments will be helpful. In these cases, teenagers will experience what it is actually like to have a collision or almost hit, hurt, or even kill another individual because their eyes were off the road while texting.

5 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2016 Annual Meeting 1651 Second, social pressures appear to be an effective means of stifling TWD behavior. Therefore, family and friends need to be more vocal in expressing their disapproval of people who text while driving. This means that these influential people must not be caught engaging in the behavior themselves. Parents and guardians can even go so far as to install an app or software on their teenager s phone that prevents them from texting and driving, which enforces the message that TWD is not acceptable. Free apps that are currently available include Text No More, Canary, and DriveSafe.ly. The Text No More app encourages teens to refrain from TWD by rewarding them for abstaining. Canary sends parents an auditory alert whenever their teen is texting while driving or otherwise driving while distracted. Drive Safe.ly can help teens keep their eyes on the road by reading aloud incoming texts and messages and replying with automated responses. Additionally, training should emphasize to teenagers that concealed texting is absolutely NOT acceptable. Apps such as Sprint Drive First which turns off text and phone call notifications while someone is driving can help in this effort since they do not rely on someone else detecting the actions first hand. CONCLUSIONS The results of this pilot study provide evidence supporting the supposition that individual differences such as those represented by the extended TPB constructs can be used to explain some of the variations associated with teenager TWD behavior. One of the main limitations of this pilot study is the small sample size; therefore, additional data from a larger pool of people will be collected before final recommendations are made. The recommendations resulting from this larger pool of respondents will be in the form of customized training protocols that can be used to more effectively address the social constructs that motivate teenagers to engage in texting while driving. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the Southeastern Transportation Center (STC), grant # DTRT13-G- UTC34. REFERENCES Atchley, P., Hadlock, C., and Lane, S. (2012). Stuck in the 70s: The role of social norms in distracted driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 48, Bazargan-Hejazi, S., Teruya, S., Pan, D., Lin, J., Gordon, D., Korchalk, P.C., and Bazargan, M. (in press). The theory of planned behavior (TPB) and texting while driving behavior in college students. Traffic and Injury Prevention. Buchanan, T., Johnson, J.A., and Goldberg, L.R. (2005). Implementing a five-factor personality inventory for use on the internet. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21 (2), Cassulino, F., Burke, R.V., Muller, V., Arbogast, J., and Upperman, J.S. (2014). Cell phones and young drivers: a systematic review regarding the association between psychological factors and prevention. Traffic Injury Prevention, 15(3), Cronbach, L. (1970) Essentials of Psychology Testing. Harper and Row, New York, USA. Engelberg, E., and Sjoberg, L. (2004). Internet use, social skills, and adjustment. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(1), Green, M. (2015). Distraction and teen crashes: Even worse than we thought. AAA Newsroom. URL: Last accessed January 14, Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Attitude Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Gauld, C. S., Lewis, I., and White, K. M. (2014). Concealing their communication: exploring psychosocial predictors of young drivers intentions and engagement in concealed texting. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 62, Hafetz, J. S., Jacobsohn, L. S., Garcia-Espana, J. F., Curray, A. E., and Winston, F. K. (2010). Adolescent drivers perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of abstention from in-vehicle cell phone use. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), Huth-Bocks, A. C. (1996). Personality, sensation seeking, and risktaking behavior in a college population. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(3-4), Kahn, C.A., Cisneros, V., Lotfipour, S., Imani, G., and Chakravarthy, B. (2015). Distracted driving, a major preventable cause of motor vehicle collisions: Just hang up and drive. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16(7), Landers, R. N., and Lounsbury, J.W. (2006). An investigation of big five and narrow personality traits in relation to internet usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), Mecca, D.N. (2003). The relationship between pathological gambling and the Big-Five personality factors. Unpublished master s thesis, New Britain, CT: central Connecticut State University. Olsen, E.O., Shultz, R.A., and Eaton, D.K. (2013). Texting while driving and other risky motor vehicle behaviors among US high school students. Pediatrics, 131(6), Swickert, R. J., Hittner, J.B., Harris, H., and Herring, J.A. (2002). Relationships among internet use, personality, and social support. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(4), Trafimow, D., & Fishbein, M. (1994). The moderating effect of behavior type on the subjective norm-behavior relationship. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2),