- Email: [email protected]
College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving
Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving Marissa A. Harrison ∗ Penn State Harrisburg, Olmsted W311, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 October 2010 Received in revised form 7 February 2011 Accepted 7 March 2011 Keywords: Text messaging Driving Texting Safety Recklessness Sexting
a b s t r a c t By analyzing self-reports from sample of 91 college students from the United States who are frequent drivers, the present study examined the prevalence of text messaging (or “texting”) while driving and the incidence of recklessness and consequences that accompany this behavior. Analyses revealed that 91% of participants reported having used text messaging while driving, with many reporting doing so with passengers, including children, riding in their vehicles. Further, a substantial number of participants reported driving dangerously above the speed limit and drifting into other traffic lanes while texting, and many reported “sexting” and arguing via text messages while driving. However, these young drivers agreed that texting while driving is dangerous and should be illegal. These results and the limitations to the present study are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Cellular phone use has become an integral part of our daily lives. As of June 2009, there were nearly 277 million wireless subscribers in the US (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association-CTIA, 2009). Short Message Service (SMS) service, more commonly referred to as text messaging or “texting,” has become a standard part of mobile phone operations and has permeated our society. It is considered by some to have evolved into a separate “text world” possessing “its own social ecology and structure” (Reid and Reid, 2004; Reid and Reid, 2006, p. 5). In 2007, well over 362 billion text messages were sent in the US, which equals 690,000 texts sent per minute (CTIA, 2009). In 2008, the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation reported that as many as 45% of drivers admitted to texting while driving, and nearly a quarter of this group has been called “multi-tasking media maestros” who send and receive texts in free-flowing traffic. Research on the safety of texting while driving is in its infancy, although it is not a stretch to conclude this must be a dangerous practice due to the copious amounts of data verifying the dangers of cell phone use while driving. Studies have consistently shown that cell phone conversing while driving is substantially dangerous, leading to an estimated 2600 fatalities in the United States each year (see Clayton et al., 2006). In a powerful laboratory study, Strayer et al. (2006) compared drivers conversing on a cell phone with alcohol-impaired
∗ Tel.: +1 171 7948 6068; fax: +1 171 7948 6519. E-mail address: [email protected] 0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.003
drivers and showed that cell-using drivers demonstrated similar decrements in performance. Strayer and Drews (2007) stressed that this decreased performance is related to a driver’s diversion of attention away from the demands of driving to the cellular conversation, and showed that such a distraction does not take place when the driver takes part in an in-vehicle conversation. These researchers also noted cell phone users experience inattention blindness resulting in decreased driver memory of objects in the driving environment. Ma and Kaber’s (2005) work with driving simulators substantiates this, and they argued that cellular use taxes the driver’s “mental workload” resulting in “deleterious effects on driving” (p. 939) Other researchers have argued that cell phone use leads to hazardous increases in reaction time, causing degradation in driving performance (Horey and Wickens, 2006). Even devices allowing for hands-free mobile phone conversation while driving do not appear to minimize the dangers involved, as research has shown that hands-free users execute the tasks of driving with the same diminution in ability that hand-held cell users do compared to controls (Horey and Wickens, 2006; Hendrick and Switzer, 2007). It follows that if a hands-free device poses a danger while driving, a decidedly hands-on task such as texting while driving must be even more so. Indeed, current research shows that texting while driving results in an even greater decrease in performance compared to cellular conversations while driving. Drews et al. (2009) reported that in a simulator, texting drivers showed a decrease in control and responded more slowly to the braking lights of other cars compared to cell conversing drivers and controls. In several driving simulation studies, texters took their eyes off the road and made unnecessary
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
lane changes more frequently than did cell conversers (Crisler et al., 2008; Libby and Chaparro, 2009; Hosking et al., 2009). Cell phone users might not even be aware of the great risk of use while driving. Although Beck et al. (2007) showed that cell phone using drivers were more likely to report exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles per hour and running stop signs and red lights than non-cell-phone-using drivers, laboratory simulations have substantiated that drivers might not be aware of the extent to which their driving ability is significantly affected, including dangerous increases in braking time (Lesch and Hancock, 2004). This leads to speculation of the extent to which texting drivers are aware of their recklessness. Novice drivers appear to be especially susceptible to distraction, as simulation showed the amount of time young texters spend not looking at the road while driving was about 400% greater than controls (Hosking et al., 2009). Bryant et al. (2006) reported that younger individuals incorporate technology-mediated communication to a greater extent in their daily lives. The issue then becomes determining whether “generation text” (Thurlow, 2003), a.k.a. young texters, use this technology even when they are not supposed to be doing so. Although researchers recently indicated that 26% of American teens age 16–17 have texted while driving (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009), there is a paucity of data regarding texting while driving amongst college-age individuals (18–23). Of note, college students have reported being concerned about the dangers of text messaging while driving (Martha and Griffet, 2007), although recent data are lacking as to whether or not they will text and drive despite their concerns. As the prevalence of text messaging use appears to be growing exponentially in our society, and because younger drivers have been shown to be more distractible (Hosking et al., 2009), the present study attempts to quantify current use of college students’ text messaging while driving and seeks to determine the extent to which texting while driving poses noticeable problems for young drivers and those who share the road with them.
1517
Fig. 1. Frequency of texting while driving.
All procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board. An online instrument was created to assess attitudes towards and use of text messaging while driving. Participants for this study were recruited from a college Psychology subject pool from a mid-sized college in the northeastern United States that has a substantial commuter population. Students were given course credit in exchange for taking part in the study. The study was entitled, “Technology and You,” and participants were made aware that the study aimed to assess uses of and attitudes towards technology, but they did not know specifically that it asked about texting messaging while driving before beginning the questionnaire. The instrument was delivered privately and individually via an Internet data collection site and was completed in late 2009 and early 2010 by 103 respondents, 68 women (66%) and 35 men (34%). The mean age of participants was 22.77 (SD = 5.64).
Participants were asked to report whether they had ever used text messaging while driving. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = “Never,” 2 = “Once or twice,” 3 = “On a few occasions,” 4 = “Fairly often,” and 5 = “Very frequently.” Mean response was 3.35 (SD = 1.21), indicating statistically that participants reported they have texted on more than a few occasions, test value = 3.0, t(90) = 2.78, p < .007. Results are depicted in Fig. 1. Collapsing across frequency into a dichotomous variable of yes (they have texted while driving at some point) or no (they have never texted while driving), analysis revealed that 91.2% of participants reported they have texted while driving. Participants were further presented with a series of statements regarding the perceived safety of simultaneous texting and driving and asked to report the degree to which they agreed with each. Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = “Disagree strongly,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither disagree nor agree,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Agree strongly.” Results are depicted in Table 1. Using a test value of 3 (neutral), participants’ responses fell on the agreement end of the scale in terms of rating texting as being unsafe, t(90) = 13.63, p < .000, and that texting while driving should be illegal, t(90) = 4.48, p < .000. Participants’ responses fell on the disagreement end of the scale for negatively-scored items in terms of assessing that texting while driving is NOT distracting, t(90) = 10.98, p < .000, and that texting while driving is their business alone, t(90) = 2.21, p < .029. Participants were neutral regarding whether they (participants) will continue to text while driving, knowing it is dangerous, t(90) = .624, p > .534. Participants were also asked to report the frequency with which they experienced consequences for texting while driving and engaged in various reckless behaviors pertaining to texting while driving. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = “Never,” 2 = “Once or twice,” 3 = “On a few occa-
3. Results
Table 1 Participants’ attitudes towards the safety of texting and driving.
2. Materials and methods
Participants were asked, “How many days per week do you drive (e.g., car, truck, other passenger vehicle)?” Since the topic of this investigation was texting while driving, data from those who reported driving no days per week (n = 3) and from those who did not answer this question (n = 9) were excluded from analysis. Remaining participants (N = 91; 60 females and 31 males) reported driving a mean of 6.08 days per week (SD = 1.66), indicating the sample consisted of frequent drivers.
Item
M (SD)
It is unsafe to text while driving. It should be illegal to text while driving. Texting while driving can be dangerous, but I am going to do it anyway. It is my business if I want to text while driving. Texting while driving is NOT distracting.
4.22 (.85) 3.52 (1.1) 2.92 (1.18) 2.71 (1.23) 1.90 (.96)
Note: Responses given on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = “Disagree strongly,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither disagree nor agree,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Agree strongly”.
1518
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
Table 2 Texting while driving: percentage of respondents experiencing consequences and exhibiting recklessness. “Regarding texting and driving, have you ever. . .?” Consequences
% of respondents ever experiencing consequences
Received a ticket for texting and driving? Ran a stop sign because you were texting? Damaged your vehicle because you were texting? Hit something because you were texting? Hit another car because you were texting? Gotten injured from a car accident because you were texting and driving? Injured someone else because of texting and driving?
2.2 6.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 2.2 2.2
“Regarding texting and driving, have you ever. . .?” Recklessness Drifted into another driving lane because you were texting? Used texting while a passenger or passengers were riding in your vehicle? Used texting while you were driving a child or children in your vehicle? Been so distracted by texting that you know you are being reckless? Driven more than 10 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Driven more than 20 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Driven more than 30 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Engaged in “sexting” (talking about sex in text messages) while you were driving? Gotten into an argument via text messages with someone while you were driving? Eaten food, texted, and drove at the same time?
sions,” 4 = “Fairly often,” and 5 = “Very frequently.” Results show that the most frequently reported answer for every item was never engaging in the behavior (p < .000 for every response). Of interest, however, was the percentage of respondents ever engaging in or experiencing each of the scenarios of texting and driving. Thus, results were collapsed across frequency to a dichotomous yes or no. Items and results are presented in Table 2. In addition, the associations between reported recklessness exhibited while texting and driving, reported consequences experienced because of texting while driving, and attitudes towards texting while driving were explored. The five attitudinal items were summed to form a single attitude score, with permissive/defiant attitudes about texting while driving treated as negative variables. Thus, negative scores indicated a more permissive attitude towards texting while driving. Similarly, the recklessness items were summed to a single score, as were the consequences items. Analyses showed a significant negative relationship between attitudes about texting while driving and reckless behavior exhibited while texting and driving, r(88) = −.304, p = .000. However, there was no relationship between attitudes about texting while driving and consequences experienced because of this behavior, r(88) = −.03, p = .901. Further, there was a significant positive association between recklessness exhibited and consequences experienced, r(88) = .483, p = .000. 4. Discussion A considerable body of evidence has shown that talking on one’s cellular phone while driving poses extreme safety risks and that text messaging while driving appears to create an ever greater decrement in driving performance. Studies also show that younger drivers appear to be especially prone to distraction and to experience profound decrements in driving while they text (e.g., Hosking et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the participants in this study (91%) reported that they have text messaged while driving. Most people in this study believed that texting while driving is dangerous, distracting, and should be illegal. However, they were neutral in their opinions as to whether knowing its dangers they would engage in this behavior anyway. Further, even though these young drivers acknowledged the hazards of this behavior, most admitted that they texted while driving on at least a few occasions.
% of respondents ever engaging in behavior 54.9 61.1 23.3 38.5 53.3 20.0 12.2 20.9 40.7 38.5
It seems that text messaging has become such an integral part of our daily existence that its importance to us allows for a suspension of concern and consideration of consequences for ourselves, passengers, and other drivers who share the roadways. Fortunately, most drivers in the present study reported not experiencing consequences for texting while driving, such as getting injured, injuring someone else, or damaging their vehicle. However, a good number of participants have engaged in texting while driving, with the majority admitting to doing so with passengers in their vehicles; nearly a quarter of participants admitted to texting with children riding in their vehicles. Further, it is noteworthy that more than half of participants have drifted into another traffic lane while they were texting while driving, half of respondents have texted while driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, 20% have done so while driving 20 miles per hour about the speed limit, 12% have done so while driving 30 miles per hour over the speed limit, and nearly 7% failed to heed a stop sign because they were texting. Data from the present study add to the growing body of convincing evidence that suggests law makers should implement tougher sanctions for such violations, and the danger of such behaviors necessitates that future research focuses on preventative measures. Interesting, too, is that over one out of five people in this sample of college students has engaged in “sexting” (sending sex-themed text messages) while driving, 40% have been involved in texted arguments while driving, and nearly 40% have simultaneously texted, eaten food, and driven. Permissive attitudes towards texting while driving were related to increased recklessness exhibited while engaging in this behavior. On the other hand, there was no relationship between attitudes towards texting while driving and the consequences experienced for this behavior. The small number of people who reported experiencing such consequences likely made a statistical comparison ineffective. Also, it is possible that those who have experienced grave consequences for texting while driving may not have been available to participate in the present study. Future studies with larger sample sizes and/or different sampling procedures may reveal significant results. In addition, there was a moderate correlation between recklessness and consequences experienced for texting while driving. Although there were not many people who reported experiencing consequences for texting and driving, the present data show that attitudes are predicting safety outcomes.
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
As research has shown that in spite of knowing the safety risks of a dangerous behavior people will continue to engage in it (cf. Silla and Luoma, 2009), additional prevention research is imperative. An increasing body of evidence suggests that a legal ban on texting and driving should be implemented, and that punishment for such safety violations is likely a more effective means of increasing safety awareness than is targeted education (Lobb et al., 2003). A reactive measure such as a harsh punishment for texting, however, may come after safety consequences. Unfortunately, however, as pointed out by Lobb (2006), there has been little research to substantiate the true efficacy of safety compliance directives. Therefore, future research should focus on measuring the effectiveness of proactive measures that can be taken to prevent texting while driving, particularly targeting younger drivers, as younger individuals tend to rely more heavily on technology-medicated communications (Bryant et al., 2006). This is further justified in light of findings by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice (2007) which estimated that young drivers (15–24 years old) were 188% more likely than adult drivers (25–64 years old) to cause an automobile accident, and by the findings by Hosking et al. (2009) that younger drivers who text are more distractible. Perhaps informational campaigns geared toward younger drivers/college students that emphasize the dangers of simultaneous texting and driving should be more visible (this researcher who is a college professor has never seen any), as some research has shown that increasing message size and impact can be successful at increasing safety compliance (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2007). Of note, Nemme and White (2010) suggested that a better understanding of the mediators of the decision to text and drive may lead to reduction of this risky behavior. Additional research of this nature is critically warranted for the development of successful preventative measures.
1519
Regardless, these pilot data bring attention to dangerous and increasing trend (the present data show texting while driving to be 2–3 times more prevalent than reported in previous studies, although different sampling methods and age groups may account for this difference) amongst a population of drivers who are still relatively inexperienced, and they serve as a springboard for future research for understanding and preventing this extremely risky behavior. It should also be noted that this study did not distinguish between texts sent and received and simply asked about “texting while driving.” Future studies may want to differentiate between these actions, although both are obviously likely to be dangerously distracting to a driver. Moreover, future studies may want to assess the content of text messages sent and received while driving and the attitudes of the driving texter to try to determine why these particular messages must be sent at that time and place. In addition, as in any self-report research, estimation difficulties, memory issues, and purposeful exaggeration may have skewed these data (Hyde and Delamater, 2009). 4.2. Conclusion Almost all the college students in the present study text while driving, thereby endangering themselves, their passengers, and other drivers. It is evident that stringent laws and punishments for engaging in texting while driving should be enacted, and that far more information about its risk should be present to the public to warn of its prevalence and hazards. The irony is not lost in that texting while driving may lead to devastating consequences for one’s self and for others, including never seeing again the people to whom one has an ostensibly obsessive desire to stay connected. References
4.1. Limitations The incidence of engaging in the reckless behaviors listed above may have been underreported because of social desirability. That is, the college students in this survey tend to agree that texting while driving is dangerous, so they may have downplayed doing so. In addition, it should be acknowledged that anyone who has had their driver’s license revoked or has been severely injured or killed due to texting while driving would not have been in a position to participate in this study. Thus, the consequences of texting and driving may be underreported. Moreover, research such as that conducted by Beck et al. (2007) shows that drivers using mobile devices may not be aware of the extent to which they are driving dangerously, and so the true incidence of such may be underreported herein. Further, the participants in this study were self-selected college students from the northeast United States, and therefore these results may not generalize to the population of all drivers in the United States or worldwide. Thus, results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, the present sample was 66% female, an accurate representation of the college Psychology research pool from which it was drawn; however, data from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration indicated that among individuals 23 years old (the approximate mean age of the present study’s sample), 50.3% are men and 49.7% are women, and men in the United States drive more miles each year than do women (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008). Thus, this study’s convenience sample, although informative, is not truly representative and should be interpreted with caution. (Of note, however, was that a posteriori analysis revealed no sex differences in any of the behaviors described herein.) Larger, community-based, random and representative samples from drivers could allow analysis of regional, cultural, and socioeconomic factors to paint a more accurate picture of the prevalence and consequences of texting while driving.
Beck, K., Yan, F., Wang, M., 2007. Cell phone users, reported crash risk, unsafe driving behaviors and dispositions: a survey of motorists in Maryland. Journal of Safety Research 38 (6), 683–688. Bryant, J., Sanders-Jackson, A., Smallwood, A., 2006. IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 577–592. Clayton, M., Helms, B., Simpson, C., 2006. Active prompting to decrease cell phone use and increase seat belt use while driving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 39 (3), 341–349. Crisler, M., et al., 2008. Effect of wireless communications and entertainment devices on simulating driving performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2069, 48–54, doi:10.3141/2069-07. CTIA – The Wireless Association, 2009. CTIA semi-annual wireless industry survey results, retrieved from http://files.ctia.org/pdf/ CTIA Survey Year End 2006 Graphics.pdf. Drews, F., Yazdani, H., Godfrey, C., Cooper, J., Strayer, D., 2009. Text messaging during simulated driving. Human Factors 51 (5), 762–770, doi:10.1177/0018720809353319. Hendrick, J., Switzer, J., 2007. Hands-free versus hand-held cell phone conversation on a braking response by young drivers. Perceptual and Motor Skills 105 (2), 514–522. Horey, W., Wickens, C., 2006. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors 48 (1), 196–205. Hosking, S., Young, K., Regan, M., 2009. The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Human Factors 51 (4), 582–592. Hyde, J., Delamater, J., 2009. Understanding Human Sexuality. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Lesch, M., Hancock, P., 2004. Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis & Prevention 36 (3), 471–480. Libby, D., Chaparro, A., 2009. Text messaging versus talking on a cell phone: a comparison of their effects on driving performance. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 53 (18), 1353–1357. Lobb, B., 2006. Trespassing on the tracks: a review of railway pedestrian safety research. Journal of Safety Research 37, 359–365. Lobb, B., Harre, N., Terry, N., 2003. An evaluation of four types of railway pedestrian crossing safety intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35 (4), 487–494. Ma, R., Kaber, D., 2005. Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (10), 939–953. Martha, C., Griffet, J., 2007. Brief report: how do adolescents perceive the risks related to cell-phone use? Journal of Adolescence 30 (3), 513–521.
1520
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
Nemme, H., White, K., 2010. Texting while driving: psychosocial influences on young people’s texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42 (4), 1257–1265. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009. Teens and distracted driving, retrieved from http://www.youblisher.com/p/4906-Teens-and-Distracted-Driving/. Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2007. An investigation into trespass and access via the platform ends at railway stations, retrieved from http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T322 rb final.pdf. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2007. Regulating older drivers: are new policies needed? The Rand Corporation Occasional Paper Series, retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional papers/2007/RAND OP189.pdf. Reid, D., Reid, F., 2006. Textmates and text circles: insights into the social ecology of SMS text messaging. In: Hamill, L., et al. (Eds.), Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Mobil World Past, Present and Future. Springer, London, UK. Reid, D., Reid, F., 2004. Insight into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging. Journal of the British Computer Society (February),
retrieved from http://www.160characters.org/documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf. Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation, 2008. Half of motorists txt+drv, retrieved from http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/half-britains-motoriststext-drive. Silla, A., Luoma, J., 2009. Trespassing on Finnish railways: identification of problem sites and characteristics of trespassing behaviour. European Transport Research Review 1 (1), 47–53. Strayer, D., Drews, F., 2007. Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16 (3), 128–131. Strayer, D., Drews, F., Crouch, D., 2006. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors 48 (2), 381–391. Thurlow, C., 2003. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, retrieved from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/ articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008. Highway Statistics 2008. Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/ 2008/dl20.cfm.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving Marissa A. Harrison ∗ Penn State Harrisburg, Olmsted W311, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 24 October 2010 Received in revised form 7 February 2011 Accepted 7 March 2011 Keywords: Text messaging Driving Texting Safety Recklessness Sexting
a b s t r a c t By analyzing self-reports from sample of 91 college students from the United States who are frequent drivers, the present study examined the prevalence of text messaging (or “texting”) while driving and the incidence of recklessness and consequences that accompany this behavior. Analyses revealed that 91% of participants reported having used text messaging while driving, with many reporting doing so with passengers, including children, riding in their vehicles. Further, a substantial number of participants reported driving dangerously above the speed limit and drifting into other traffic lanes while texting, and many reported “sexting” and arguing via text messages while driving. However, these young drivers agreed that texting while driving is dangerous and should be illegal. These results and the limitations to the present study are discussed. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Cellular phone use has become an integral part of our daily lives. As of June 2009, there were nearly 277 million wireless subscribers in the US (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association-CTIA, 2009). Short Message Service (SMS) service, more commonly referred to as text messaging or “texting,” has become a standard part of mobile phone operations and has permeated our society. It is considered by some to have evolved into a separate “text world” possessing “its own social ecology and structure” (Reid and Reid, 2004; Reid and Reid, 2006, p. 5). In 2007, well over 362 billion text messages were sent in the US, which equals 690,000 texts sent per minute (CTIA, 2009). In 2008, the Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation reported that as many as 45% of drivers admitted to texting while driving, and nearly a quarter of this group has been called “multi-tasking media maestros” who send and receive texts in free-flowing traffic. Research on the safety of texting while driving is in its infancy, although it is not a stretch to conclude this must be a dangerous practice due to the copious amounts of data verifying the dangers of cell phone use while driving. Studies have consistently shown that cell phone conversing while driving is substantially dangerous, leading to an estimated 2600 fatalities in the United States each year (see Clayton et al., 2006). In a powerful laboratory study, Strayer et al. (2006) compared drivers conversing on a cell phone with alcohol-impaired
∗ Tel.: +1 171 7948 6068; fax: +1 171 7948 6519. E-mail address: [email protected] 0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.003
drivers and showed that cell-using drivers demonstrated similar decrements in performance. Strayer and Drews (2007) stressed that this decreased performance is related to a driver’s diversion of attention away from the demands of driving to the cellular conversation, and showed that such a distraction does not take place when the driver takes part in an in-vehicle conversation. These researchers also noted cell phone users experience inattention blindness resulting in decreased driver memory of objects in the driving environment. Ma and Kaber’s (2005) work with driving simulators substantiates this, and they argued that cellular use taxes the driver’s “mental workload” resulting in “deleterious effects on driving” (p. 939) Other researchers have argued that cell phone use leads to hazardous increases in reaction time, causing degradation in driving performance (Horey and Wickens, 2006). Even devices allowing for hands-free mobile phone conversation while driving do not appear to minimize the dangers involved, as research has shown that hands-free users execute the tasks of driving with the same diminution in ability that hand-held cell users do compared to controls (Horey and Wickens, 2006; Hendrick and Switzer, 2007). It follows that if a hands-free device poses a danger while driving, a decidedly hands-on task such as texting while driving must be even more so. Indeed, current research shows that texting while driving results in an even greater decrease in performance compared to cellular conversations while driving. Drews et al. (2009) reported that in a simulator, texting drivers showed a decrease in control and responded more slowly to the braking lights of other cars compared to cell conversing drivers and controls. In several driving simulation studies, texters took their eyes off the road and made unnecessary
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
lane changes more frequently than did cell conversers (Crisler et al., 2008; Libby and Chaparro, 2009; Hosking et al., 2009). Cell phone users might not even be aware of the great risk of use while driving. Although Beck et al. (2007) showed that cell phone using drivers were more likely to report exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles per hour and running stop signs and red lights than non-cell-phone-using drivers, laboratory simulations have substantiated that drivers might not be aware of the extent to which their driving ability is significantly affected, including dangerous increases in braking time (Lesch and Hancock, 2004). This leads to speculation of the extent to which texting drivers are aware of their recklessness. Novice drivers appear to be especially susceptible to distraction, as simulation showed the amount of time young texters spend not looking at the road while driving was about 400% greater than controls (Hosking et al., 2009). Bryant et al. (2006) reported that younger individuals incorporate technology-mediated communication to a greater extent in their daily lives. The issue then becomes determining whether “generation text” (Thurlow, 2003), a.k.a. young texters, use this technology even when they are not supposed to be doing so. Although researchers recently indicated that 26% of American teens age 16–17 have texted while driving (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009), there is a paucity of data regarding texting while driving amongst college-age individuals (18–23). Of note, college students have reported being concerned about the dangers of text messaging while driving (Martha and Griffet, 2007), although recent data are lacking as to whether or not they will text and drive despite their concerns. As the prevalence of text messaging use appears to be growing exponentially in our society, and because younger drivers have been shown to be more distractible (Hosking et al., 2009), the present study attempts to quantify current use of college students’ text messaging while driving and seeks to determine the extent to which texting while driving poses noticeable problems for young drivers and those who share the road with them.
1517
Fig. 1. Frequency of texting while driving.
All procedures were approved by the local Institutional Review Board. An online instrument was created to assess attitudes towards and use of text messaging while driving. Participants for this study were recruited from a college Psychology subject pool from a mid-sized college in the northeastern United States that has a substantial commuter population. Students were given course credit in exchange for taking part in the study. The study was entitled, “Technology and You,” and participants were made aware that the study aimed to assess uses of and attitudes towards technology, but they did not know specifically that it asked about texting messaging while driving before beginning the questionnaire. The instrument was delivered privately and individually via an Internet data collection site and was completed in late 2009 and early 2010 by 103 respondents, 68 women (66%) and 35 men (34%). The mean age of participants was 22.77 (SD = 5.64).
Participants were asked to report whether they had ever used text messaging while driving. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = “Never,” 2 = “Once or twice,” 3 = “On a few occasions,” 4 = “Fairly often,” and 5 = “Very frequently.” Mean response was 3.35 (SD = 1.21), indicating statistically that participants reported they have texted on more than a few occasions, test value = 3.0, t(90) = 2.78, p < .007. Results are depicted in Fig. 1. Collapsing across frequency into a dichotomous variable of yes (they have texted while driving at some point) or no (they have never texted while driving), analysis revealed that 91.2% of participants reported they have texted while driving. Participants were further presented with a series of statements regarding the perceived safety of simultaneous texting and driving and asked to report the degree to which they agreed with each. Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = “Disagree strongly,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither disagree nor agree,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Agree strongly.” Results are depicted in Table 1. Using a test value of 3 (neutral), participants’ responses fell on the agreement end of the scale in terms of rating texting as being unsafe, t(90) = 13.63, p < .000, and that texting while driving should be illegal, t(90) = 4.48, p < .000. Participants’ responses fell on the disagreement end of the scale for negatively-scored items in terms of assessing that texting while driving is NOT distracting, t(90) = 10.98, p < .000, and that texting while driving is their business alone, t(90) = 2.21, p < .029. Participants were neutral regarding whether they (participants) will continue to text while driving, knowing it is dangerous, t(90) = .624, p > .534. Participants were also asked to report the frequency with which they experienced consequences for texting while driving and engaged in various reckless behaviors pertaining to texting while driving. Responses were given on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1 = “Never,” 2 = “Once or twice,” 3 = “On a few occa-
3. Results
Table 1 Participants’ attitudes towards the safety of texting and driving.
2. Materials and methods
Participants were asked, “How many days per week do you drive (e.g., car, truck, other passenger vehicle)?” Since the topic of this investigation was texting while driving, data from those who reported driving no days per week (n = 3) and from those who did not answer this question (n = 9) were excluded from analysis. Remaining participants (N = 91; 60 females and 31 males) reported driving a mean of 6.08 days per week (SD = 1.66), indicating the sample consisted of frequent drivers.
Item
M (SD)
It is unsafe to text while driving. It should be illegal to text while driving. Texting while driving can be dangerous, but I am going to do it anyway. It is my business if I want to text while driving. Texting while driving is NOT distracting.
4.22 (.85) 3.52 (1.1) 2.92 (1.18) 2.71 (1.23) 1.90 (.96)
Note: Responses given on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 = “Disagree strongly,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither disagree nor agree,” 4 = “Agree,” and 5 = “Agree strongly”.
1518
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
Table 2 Texting while driving: percentage of respondents experiencing consequences and exhibiting recklessness. “Regarding texting and driving, have you ever. . .?” Consequences
% of respondents ever experiencing consequences
Received a ticket for texting and driving? Ran a stop sign because you were texting? Damaged your vehicle because you were texting? Hit something because you were texting? Hit another car because you were texting? Gotten injured from a car accident because you were texting and driving? Injured someone else because of texting and driving?
2.2 6.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 2.2 2.2
“Regarding texting and driving, have you ever. . .?” Recklessness Drifted into another driving lane because you were texting? Used texting while a passenger or passengers were riding in your vehicle? Used texting while you were driving a child or children in your vehicle? Been so distracted by texting that you know you are being reckless? Driven more than 10 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Driven more than 20 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Driven more than 30 MPH over the speed limit while you were texting? Engaged in “sexting” (talking about sex in text messages) while you were driving? Gotten into an argument via text messages with someone while you were driving? Eaten food, texted, and drove at the same time?
sions,” 4 = “Fairly often,” and 5 = “Very frequently.” Results show that the most frequently reported answer for every item was never engaging in the behavior (p < .000 for every response). Of interest, however, was the percentage of respondents ever engaging in or experiencing each of the scenarios of texting and driving. Thus, results were collapsed across frequency to a dichotomous yes or no. Items and results are presented in Table 2. In addition, the associations between reported recklessness exhibited while texting and driving, reported consequences experienced because of texting while driving, and attitudes towards texting while driving were explored. The five attitudinal items were summed to form a single attitude score, with permissive/defiant attitudes about texting while driving treated as negative variables. Thus, negative scores indicated a more permissive attitude towards texting while driving. Similarly, the recklessness items were summed to a single score, as were the consequences items. Analyses showed a significant negative relationship between attitudes about texting while driving and reckless behavior exhibited while texting and driving, r(88) = −.304, p = .000. However, there was no relationship between attitudes about texting while driving and consequences experienced because of this behavior, r(88) = −.03, p = .901. Further, there was a significant positive association between recklessness exhibited and consequences experienced, r(88) = .483, p = .000. 4. Discussion A considerable body of evidence has shown that talking on one’s cellular phone while driving poses extreme safety risks and that text messaging while driving appears to create an ever greater decrement in driving performance. Studies also show that younger drivers appear to be especially prone to distraction and to experience profound decrements in driving while they text (e.g., Hosking et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the participants in this study (91%) reported that they have text messaged while driving. Most people in this study believed that texting while driving is dangerous, distracting, and should be illegal. However, they were neutral in their opinions as to whether knowing its dangers they would engage in this behavior anyway. Further, even though these young drivers acknowledged the hazards of this behavior, most admitted that they texted while driving on at least a few occasions.
% of respondents ever engaging in behavior 54.9 61.1 23.3 38.5 53.3 20.0 12.2 20.9 40.7 38.5
It seems that text messaging has become such an integral part of our daily existence that its importance to us allows for a suspension of concern and consideration of consequences for ourselves, passengers, and other drivers who share the roadways. Fortunately, most drivers in the present study reported not experiencing consequences for texting while driving, such as getting injured, injuring someone else, or damaging their vehicle. However, a good number of participants have engaged in texting while driving, with the majority admitting to doing so with passengers in their vehicles; nearly a quarter of participants admitted to texting with children riding in their vehicles. Further, it is noteworthy that more than half of participants have drifted into another traffic lane while they were texting while driving, half of respondents have texted while driving 10 miles per hour over the speed limit, 20% have done so while driving 20 miles per hour about the speed limit, 12% have done so while driving 30 miles per hour over the speed limit, and nearly 7% failed to heed a stop sign because they were texting. Data from the present study add to the growing body of convincing evidence that suggests law makers should implement tougher sanctions for such violations, and the danger of such behaviors necessitates that future research focuses on preventative measures. Interesting, too, is that over one out of five people in this sample of college students has engaged in “sexting” (sending sex-themed text messages) while driving, 40% have been involved in texted arguments while driving, and nearly 40% have simultaneously texted, eaten food, and driven. Permissive attitudes towards texting while driving were related to increased recklessness exhibited while engaging in this behavior. On the other hand, there was no relationship between attitudes towards texting while driving and the consequences experienced for this behavior. The small number of people who reported experiencing such consequences likely made a statistical comparison ineffective. Also, it is possible that those who have experienced grave consequences for texting while driving may not have been available to participate in the present study. Future studies with larger sample sizes and/or different sampling procedures may reveal significant results. In addition, there was a moderate correlation between recklessness and consequences experienced for texting while driving. Although there were not many people who reported experiencing consequences for texting and driving, the present data show that attitudes are predicting safety outcomes.
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
As research has shown that in spite of knowing the safety risks of a dangerous behavior people will continue to engage in it (cf. Silla and Luoma, 2009), additional prevention research is imperative. An increasing body of evidence suggests that a legal ban on texting and driving should be implemented, and that punishment for such safety violations is likely a more effective means of increasing safety awareness than is targeted education (Lobb et al., 2003). A reactive measure such as a harsh punishment for texting, however, may come after safety consequences. Unfortunately, however, as pointed out by Lobb (2006), there has been little research to substantiate the true efficacy of safety compliance directives. Therefore, future research should focus on measuring the effectiveness of proactive measures that can be taken to prevent texting while driving, particularly targeting younger drivers, as younger individuals tend to rely more heavily on technology-medicated communications (Bryant et al., 2006). This is further justified in light of findings by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice (2007) which estimated that young drivers (15–24 years old) were 188% more likely than adult drivers (25–64 years old) to cause an automobile accident, and by the findings by Hosking et al. (2009) that younger drivers who text are more distractible. Perhaps informational campaigns geared toward younger drivers/college students that emphasize the dangers of simultaneous texting and driving should be more visible (this researcher who is a college professor has never seen any), as some research has shown that increasing message size and impact can be successful at increasing safety compliance (Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2007). Of note, Nemme and White (2010) suggested that a better understanding of the mediators of the decision to text and drive may lead to reduction of this risky behavior. Additional research of this nature is critically warranted for the development of successful preventative measures.
1519
Regardless, these pilot data bring attention to dangerous and increasing trend (the present data show texting while driving to be 2–3 times more prevalent than reported in previous studies, although different sampling methods and age groups may account for this difference) amongst a population of drivers who are still relatively inexperienced, and they serve as a springboard for future research for understanding and preventing this extremely risky behavior. It should also be noted that this study did not distinguish between texts sent and received and simply asked about “texting while driving.” Future studies may want to differentiate between these actions, although both are obviously likely to be dangerously distracting to a driver. Moreover, future studies may want to assess the content of text messages sent and received while driving and the attitudes of the driving texter to try to determine why these particular messages must be sent at that time and place. In addition, as in any self-report research, estimation difficulties, memory issues, and purposeful exaggeration may have skewed these data (Hyde and Delamater, 2009). 4.2. Conclusion Almost all the college students in the present study text while driving, thereby endangering themselves, their passengers, and other drivers. It is evident that stringent laws and punishments for engaging in texting while driving should be enacted, and that far more information about its risk should be present to the public to warn of its prevalence and hazards. The irony is not lost in that texting while driving may lead to devastating consequences for one’s self and for others, including never seeing again the people to whom one has an ostensibly obsessive desire to stay connected. References
4.1. Limitations The incidence of engaging in the reckless behaviors listed above may have been underreported because of social desirability. That is, the college students in this survey tend to agree that texting while driving is dangerous, so they may have downplayed doing so. In addition, it should be acknowledged that anyone who has had their driver’s license revoked or has been severely injured or killed due to texting while driving would not have been in a position to participate in this study. Thus, the consequences of texting and driving may be underreported. Moreover, research such as that conducted by Beck et al. (2007) shows that drivers using mobile devices may not be aware of the extent to which they are driving dangerously, and so the true incidence of such may be underreported herein. Further, the participants in this study were self-selected college students from the northeast United States, and therefore these results may not generalize to the population of all drivers in the United States or worldwide. Thus, results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, the present sample was 66% female, an accurate representation of the college Psychology research pool from which it was drawn; however, data from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration indicated that among individuals 23 years old (the approximate mean age of the present study’s sample), 50.3% are men and 49.7% are women, and men in the United States drive more miles each year than do women (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008). Thus, this study’s convenience sample, although informative, is not truly representative and should be interpreted with caution. (Of note, however, was that a posteriori analysis revealed no sex differences in any of the behaviors described herein.) Larger, community-based, random and representative samples from drivers could allow analysis of regional, cultural, and socioeconomic factors to paint a more accurate picture of the prevalence and consequences of texting while driving.
Beck, K., Yan, F., Wang, M., 2007. Cell phone users, reported crash risk, unsafe driving behaviors and dispositions: a survey of motorists in Maryland. Journal of Safety Research 38 (6), 683–688. Bryant, J., Sanders-Jackson, A., Smallwood, A., 2006. IMing, text messaging, and adolescent social networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 577–592. Clayton, M., Helms, B., Simpson, C., 2006. Active prompting to decrease cell phone use and increase seat belt use while driving. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 39 (3), 341–349. Crisler, M., et al., 2008. Effect of wireless communications and entertainment devices on simulating driving performance. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2069, 48–54, doi:10.3141/2069-07. CTIA – The Wireless Association, 2009. CTIA semi-annual wireless industry survey results, retrieved from http://files.ctia.org/pdf/ CTIA Survey Year End 2006 Graphics.pdf. Drews, F., Yazdani, H., Godfrey, C., Cooper, J., Strayer, D., 2009. Text messaging during simulated driving. Human Factors 51 (5), 762–770, doi:10.1177/0018720809353319. Hendrick, J., Switzer, J., 2007. Hands-free versus hand-held cell phone conversation on a braking response by young drivers. Perceptual and Motor Skills 105 (2), 514–522. Horey, W., Wickens, C., 2006. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors 48 (1), 196–205. Hosking, S., Young, K., Regan, M., 2009. The effects of text messaging on young drivers. Human Factors 51 (4), 582–592. Hyde, J., Delamater, J., 2009. Understanding Human Sexuality. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Lesch, M., Hancock, P., 2004. Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis & Prevention 36 (3), 471–480. Libby, D., Chaparro, A., 2009. Text messaging versus talking on a cell phone: a comparison of their effects on driving performance. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 53 (18), 1353–1357. Lobb, B., 2006. Trespassing on the tracks: a review of railway pedestrian safety research. Journal of Safety Research 37, 359–365. Lobb, B., Harre, N., Terry, N., 2003. An evaluation of four types of railway pedestrian crossing safety intervention. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35 (4), 487–494. Ma, R., Kaber, D., 2005. Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35 (10), 939–953. Martha, C., Griffet, J., 2007. Brief report: how do adolescents perceive the risks related to cell-phone use? Journal of Adolescence 30 (3), 513–521.
1520
M.A. Harrison / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 1516–1520
Nemme, H., White, K., 2010. Texting while driving: psychosocial influences on young people’s texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42 (4), 1257–1265. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2009. Teens and distracted driving, retrieved from http://www.youblisher.com/p/4906-Teens-and-Distracted-Driving/. Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2007. An investigation into trespass and access via the platform ends at railway stations, retrieved from http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/reports/research/T322 rb final.pdf. RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2007. Regulating older drivers: are new policies needed? The Rand Corporation Occasional Paper Series, retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional papers/2007/RAND OP189.pdf. Reid, D., Reid, F., 2006. Textmates and text circles: insights into the social ecology of SMS text messaging. In: Hamill, L., et al. (Eds.), Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Mobil World Past, Present and Future. Springer, London, UK. Reid, D., Reid, F., 2004. Insight into the social and psychological effects of SMS text messaging. Journal of the British Computer Society (February),
retrieved from http://www.160characters.org/documents/SocialEffectsOfTextMessaging.pdf. Royal Automobile Club (RAC) Foundation, 2008. Half of motorists txt+drv, retrieved from http://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/half-britains-motoriststext-drive. Silla, A., Luoma, J., 2009. Trespassing on Finnish railways: identification of problem sites and characteristics of trespassing behaviour. European Transport Research Review 1 (1), 47–53. Strayer, D., Drews, F., 2007. Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16 (3), 128–131. Strayer, D., Drews, F., Crouch, D., 2006. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors 48 (2), 381–391. Thurlow, C., 2003. Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text messaging. Discourse Analysis Online, retrieved from http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/ articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003-paper.html. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008. Highway Statistics 2008. Federal Highway Administration, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/ 2008/dl20.cfm.