A behavioral economic analysis of texting while driving: Delay discounting processes

The purpose of the present study was to examine an impulsive decision-making process underlying texting while driving from a behavioral economic perspective. A sample of 108 college students completed a novel discounting task that presented participants with a hypothetical scenario in which, after receiving a text message while driving, they rated the likelihood of replying to a text message immediately versus waiting to reply for a specific period of time. Participants also completed a delay discounting task in which they made repeated hypothetical choices between obtaining a larger amount of money available after a delay and an equal or lesser amount of money available immediately. The results show that the duration of the delay is a critical variable that strongly determines whether participants choose to wait to reply to a text message, and that the decrease in the likelihood of waiting as a function of delay is best described by a hyperbolic delay discounting function. The results also show that participants who self-reported higher frequency of texting while driving discounted the opportunity to reply to a text message at greater rates, whereas there was no relation between the rates of discounting of hypothetical monetary rewards and the frequency of texting while driving. The results support the conclusion that texting while driving is fundamentally an impulsive choice.     

Prevalence of texting while driving and other risky driving behaviors among young people in Ontario,Canada: Evidence from 2012 and 2014

This paper reports on the prevalence of texting while driving and other risky driving behaviors by age and gender in two large samples of youth aged 16–19 years in Ontario, Canada. In Study 1 (N = 6133), we found that males reported more frequent texting while driving and speeding than females and, in terms of age, sixteen year olds reported frequent texting while driving than older participants. In Study 2 (N = 4450), which was conducted two years later, males again reported more frequent texting while driving, however there was no difference in the rate of talking on the phone while driving among males and females. Participants also reported on experiences that led to a significant reduction in their texting while driving. The most common reasons were the perceived danger of texting while driving, laws and fines against texting while driving, and observing close-calls and accidents experienced by other people. The results of both studies suggest that driving-related risk-taking behaviors co-occur and that young passengers in vehicles, including 14 and 15 year olds, are bystanders to texting while driving. Finally, there was a substantial decline in the prevalence of texting while driving across the studies. In Study 1, 27% of participants reported “sometimes” to “almost always” texting while driving compared to 6% of participants in Study 2. Limitations and implications for public campaigns targeted youth distracted driving are discussed.     

Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour

Despite the dangers and illegality, there is a continued prevalence of texting while driving amongst young Australian drivers. The present study tested an extended theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to predict young drivers’ (17-24 years) intentions to [1] send and [2] read text messages while driving. Participants (n = 169 university students) completed measures of attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, intentions, and the additional social influence measures of group norm and moral norm. One week later, participants reported on the number of texts sent and read while driving in the previous week. Attitude predicted intentions to both send and read texts while driving, and subjective norm and perceived behavioural control determined sending, but not reading, intentions. Further, intention, but not perceptions of control, predicted both texting behaviours 1 week later. In addition, both group norm and moral norm added predictive ability to the model. These findings provide support for the TPB in understanding students’ decisions to text while driving as well as the inclusion of additional normative influences within this context, suggesting that a multi-strategy approach is likely to be useful in attempts to reduce the incidence of these risky driving behaviours.     

Alcohol-related predictors of adolescent driving: Gender differences in crashes and offenses

Demographic and alcohol-related data collected from eighth-grade students (age 13 years) were used in logistic regression to predict subsequent first-year driving crashes and offenses (age 17 years). For young men's crashes and offenses, good-fitting models used living situation (both parents or not), parents' attitude about teen drinking (negative or neutral), and the interaction term. Young men who lived with both parents and reported negative parental attitudes regarding teen drinking were less likely to have crashes and offenses. For young women's crashes, a good-fitting model included friends' involvement with alcohol. Young women who reported that their friends were not involved with alcohol were least likely to have crashes. No model predicting young women's offenses emerged.     

Psychological predictors of college students’ cell phone use while driving

Despite the known risk, many people talk on a phone while driving. This study explored psychological predictors of cell phone use while driving. College students (final N = 69) completed a survey and predicted their driving performance both with and without a simultaneous phone conversation. Their actual performance on a driving simulator was then assessed. Cell phone use reduced performance on the simulation task. Further, perceiving oneself as good at compensating for driving distractions, overestimating one's performance on the driving simulator, and high illusory control predicted more frequent cell phone use while driving in everyday life. Finally, those who talked more frequently on a phone while driving had poorer real-world driving records. These findings suggest illusory control and positive illusions partly explain driver's decisions of whether to use cell phones while driving.     

Mobile phone use while driving: A hybrid modeling approach

The analysis of the effects that mobile phone use produces while driving is a topic of great interest for the scientific community. There is consensus that using a mobile phone while driving increases the risk of exposure to traffic accidents. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the drivers’ behavior when they decide whether or not to use a mobile phone while driving. For that, a hybrid modeling approach that integrates a choice model with the latent variable “risk perception” was used. It was found that workers and individuals with the highest education level are more prone to use a mobile phone while driving than others. Also, “risk perception” is higher among individuals who have been previously fined and people who have been in an accident or almost been in an accident. It was also found that the tendency to use mobile phones while driving increases when the traffic speed reduces, but it decreases when the fine increases. Even though the urgency of the phone call is the most important explanatory variable in the choice model, the cost of the fine is an important attribute in order to control mobile phone use while driving.     

A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving

Text messaging while driving is considered dangerous and known to produce injuries and fatalities. However, the effects of text messaging on driving performance have not been synthesized or summarily estimated. All available experimental studies that measured the effects of text messaging on driving were identified through database searches using variants of “driving” and “texting” without restriction on year of publication through March 2014. Of the 1476 abstracts reviewed, 82 met general inclusion criteria. Of these, 28 studies were found to sufficiently compare reading or typing text messages while driving with a control or baseline condition. Independent variables (text-messaging tasks) were coded as typing, reading, or a combination of both. Dependent variables included eye movements, stimulus detection, reaction time, collisions, lane positioning, speed and headway. Statistics were extracted from studies to compute effect sizes (r_c). A total sample of 977 participants from 28 experimental studies yielded 234 effect size estimates of the relationships among independent and dependent variables. Typing and reading text messages while driving adversely affected eye movements, stimulus detection, reaction time, collisions, lane positioning, speed and headway. Typing text messages alone produced similar decrements as typing and reading, whereas reading alone had smaller decrements over fewer dependent variables. Typing and reading text messages affects drivers’ capability to adequately direct attention to the roadway, respond to important traffic events, control a vehicle within a lane and maintain speed and headway. This meta-analysis provides convergent evidence that texting compromises the safety of the driver, passengers and other road users. Combined efforts, including legislation, enforcement, blocking technologies, parent modeling, social media, social norms and education, will be required to prevent continued deaths and injuries from texting and driving.     

Texting while driving using Google Glass™: Promising but not distraction-free

Texting while driving is risky but common. This study evaluated how texting using a Head-Mounted Display, Google Glass, impacts driving performance. Experienced drivers performed a classic car-following task while using three different interfaces to text: fully manual interaction with a head-down smartphone, vocal interaction with a smartphone, and vocal interaction with Google Glass. Fully manual interaction produced worse driving performance than either of the other interaction methods, leading to more lane excursions and variable vehicle control, and higher workload. Compared to texting vocally with a smartphone, texting using Google Glass produced fewer lane excursions, more braking responses, and lower workload. All forms of texting impaired driving performance compared to undistracted driving. These results imply that the use of Google Glass for texting impairs driving, but its Head-Mounted Display configuration and speech recognition technology may be safer than texting using a smartphone.     

Texting while driving as impulsive choice: A behavioral economic analysis

The goal of the present study was to examine the utility of a behavioral economic analysis to investigate the role of delay discounting in texting while driving. A sample of 147 college students completed a survey to assess how frequently they send and read text messages while driving. Based on this information, students were assigned to one of two groups: 19 students who frequently text while driving and 19 matched-control students who infrequently text while driving but were similar in gender, age, years of education, and years driving. The groups were compared on the extent to which they discounted, or devalued, delayed hypothetical monetary rewards using a delay-discounting task. In this task, students made repeated choices between $1000 available after a delay (ranging from 1 week to 10 years) and an equal or lesser amount of money available immediately. The results show that the students who frequently text while driving discounted delayed rewards at a greater rate than the matched control students. The study supports the conclusions that texting while driving is fundamentally an impulsive choice made by drivers, and that a behavioral economic approach may be a useful research tool for investigating the decision-making processes underlying risky behaviors.     

Gender differences among older drivers in a comprehensive driving evaluation

Research studies typically consider older drivers as a homogenous group and do not report on the influence of gender on driving performance. Prior studies report that females are over-represented in crashes compared to males, caused by errors of yielding, gap acceptance, and speed regulation, all of which are assessed in a comprehensive driving evaluation (CDE). In a sample of 294 community dwelling older drivers, we examined and compared specific and total driving errors of both genders, and determined predictors of gender-specific driving errors and pass/fail outcomes who completed a CDE assessed by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist. No differences in specific or total number of driving errors on the CDE were found between older males (Mean age 73.4 ± 6.0) and older females (Mean age 73.8 ± 5.7). Education, days of driving, Useful Field of View™ (UFOV), Rapid Paced Walk Test (RPW) and the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) were all independent predictors of failing a road test for both genders (p < 0.05). However, older females were 22% less likely than older males to fail an on-road test. Within group comparisons showed that older males and females >75 years were 3.2 and 3.5 times more likely to fail the on-road test compared to younger males and females (aged between 63 and 75), respectively. Our findings suggest that focusing on older old (75+) and old–old (85+) age groups may be more efficient for future investigations of driving performance.     

Cell phone conversing while driving in New Zealand: prevalence, risk perception and legislation

This study investigated (i) the prevalence of conversing on a cell phone while driving in New Zealand, (ii) respondents’ perception of risk regarding this behaviour and (iii) attitudes towards legislation banning cell phone use while driving. In addition, the study examined the association between the prevalence of conversing on a cell phone and risk perception. Anonymous, self-reported, survey data was collected via the internet from 1057 drivers nationwide regarding the frequency of conversing on a cell phone, including hands-free and hand-held conversing, risk perception, views on legislation, and demographic information. A positive relationship was found between the frequency of conversing on a cell phone and risk perception; that is, as the frequency of conversing on a cell phone increased, the perceived risk of this behaviour decreased.     

The effects of texting on driving performance in a driving simulator: The influence of driver age

Distracted driving is a significant contributor to motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, and texting is a particularly significant form of driver distraction that continues to be on the rise. The present study examined the influence of driver age (18–59 years old) and other factors on the disruptive effects of texting on simulated driving behavior. While ‘driving’ the simulator, subjects were engaged in a series of brief text conversations with a member of the research team. The primary dependent variable was the occurrence of Lane Excursions (defined as any time the center of the vehicle moved outside the directed driving lane, e.g., into the lane for oncoming traffic or onto the shoulder of the road), measured as (1) the percent of subjects that exhibited Lane Excursions, (2) the number of Lane Excursions occurring and (3) the percent of the texting time in Lane Excursions. Multiple Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of several factors on driving performance while texting, including text task duration, texting skill level (subject-reported), texting history (#texts/week), driver gender and driver age. Lane Excursions were not observed in the absence of texting, but 66% of subjects overall exhibited Lane Excursions while texting. Multiple Regression analysis for all subjects (N = 50) revealed that text task duration was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions, and texting skill level and driver age were significantly correlated with the percent of subjects exhibiting Lane Excursions. Driver gender was not significantly correlated with Lane Excursions during texting. Multiple Regression analysis of only highly skilled texters (N = 27) revealed that driver age was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions, the percent of subjects exhibiting Lane Excursions and the percent of texting time in Lane Excursions. In contrast, Multiple Regression analysis of those drivers who self-identified as not highly skilled texters (N = 23) revealed that text task duration was significantly correlated with the number of Lane Excursions. The present studies confirm past reports that texting impairs driving simulator performance. Moreover, the present study demonstrates that for highly skilled texters, the effects of texting on driving are actually worse for older drivers. Given the increasing frequency of texting while driving within virtually all age groups, these data suggest that ‘no texting while driving’ education and public service messages need to be continued, and they should be expanded to target older drivers as well.     

Concealing their communication: Exploring psychosocial predictors of young drivers’ intentions and engagement in concealed texting

Making a conscious effort to hide the fact that you are texting while driving (i.e., concealed texting) is a deliberate and risky behaviour involving attention diverted away from the road. As the most frequent users of text messaging services and mobile phones while driving, young people appear at heightened risk of crashing from engaging in this behaviour. This study investigated the phenomenon of concealed texting while driving, and utilised an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) including the additional predictors of moral norm, mobile phone involvement, and anticipated regret to predict young drivers’ intentions and subsequent behaviour. Participants (n = 171) were aged 17–25 years, owned a mobile phone, and had a current driver's licence. Participants completed a questionnaire measuring their intention to conceal texting while driving, and a follow-up questionnaire a week later to report their behavioural engagement. The results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed overall support for the predictive utility of the TPB with the standard constructs accounting for 69% of variance in drivers’ intentions, and the extended predictors contributing an additional 6% of variance in intentions over and above the standard constructs. Attitude, subjective norm, PBC, moral norm, and mobile phone involvement emerged as significant predictors of intentions; and intention was the only significant predictor of drivers’ self-reported behaviour. These constructs can provide insight into key focal points for countermeasures including advertising and other public education strategies aimed at influencing young drivers to reconsider their engagement in this risky behaviour.     

Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving

This study sought to investigate the relationship between cell phone conversation type and dangerous driving behaviors. It was hypothesized that more emotional phone conversations engaged in while driving would produce greater frequencies of dangerous driving behaviors in a simulated environment than more mundane conversation or no phone conversation at all. Participants were semi-randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) no call, (2) mundane call, and, (3) emotional call. While driving in a simulated environment, participants in the experimental groups received a phone call from a research confederate who either engaged them in innocuous conversation (mundane call) or arguing the opposite position of a deeply held belief of the participant (emotional call). Participants in the no call and mundane call groups differed significantly only on percent time spent speeding and center line crossings, though the mundane call group consistently engaged in more of all dangerous driving behaviors than did the no call participants. Participants in the emotional call group engaged in significantly more dangerous driving behaviors than participants in both the no call and mundane call groups, with the exception of traffic light infractions, where there were no significant group differences. Though there is need for replication, the authors concluded that whereas talking on a cell phone while driving is risky to begin with, having emotionally intense conversations is considerably more dangerous.     

College students' prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving

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.     

Stuck in the 70s: The role of social norms in distracted driving

Successful campaigns to end distracted driving must understand prevailing social norms for behaviors such as texting and phoning while driving. The current work examined this issue by asking younger drivers to read car crash scenarios and rate the responsibility of the driver for the crash, and to levy fines and assign jail time, as a function of whether the driver was attentive, had been drinking, or was distracted by phoning or texting. In the first experiment, ratings were performed in the absence of injunctive norm information (laws against drunk and distracted driving). In the second experiment, injunctive norm information was included. Impaired drivers were viewed as more responsible in both experiments, with texting drivers viewed as the most responsible. However, drunk drivers received the most fines and jail time. When compared to data from the 1970s, the results show that anti-drunk driving campaigns have changed how younger drivers view drunk driving, but that norms have not yet changed for distracted driving, despite consistent results showing they know the risk of driving distracted. Implications for social norm distracted driving campaigns are discussed.     

Impact of mobile phone use on car-following behaviour of young drivers

Multitasking, such as the concurrent use of a mobile phone and operating a motor vehicle, is a significant distraction that impairs driving performance and is becoming a leading cause of motor vehicle crashes. This study investigates the impact of mobile phone conversations on car-following behaviour. The CARRS-Q Advanced Driving Simulator was used to test a group of young Australian drivers aged 18–26 years on a car-following task in three randomised phone conditions: baseline (no phone conversation), hands-free and handheld. Repeated measure ANOVA was applied to examine the effect of mobile phone distraction on selected car-following variables such as driving speed, spacing, and time headway. Overall, drivers tended to select slower driving speeds, larger vehicle spacings, and longer time headways when they were engaged in either hands-free or handheld phone conversations, suggesting possible risk compensatory behaviour. In addition, phone conversations while driving influenced car-following behaviour such that variability was increased in driving speeds, vehicle spacings, and acceleration and decelerations. To further investigate car-following behaviour of distracted drivers, driver time headways were modelled using Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE). After controlling for various exogenous factors, the model predicts an increase of 0.33 s in time headway when a driver is engaged in hands-free phone conversation and a 0.75 s increase for handheld phone conversation. The findings will improve the collective understanding of distraction on driving performance, in particular car following behaviour which is most critical in the determination of rear-end crashes.     

Safety-critical event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured in naturalistic driving studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of naturalistic driving studies involving estimates of safety-critical event risk associated with handheld device use while driving is described. Fifty-seven studies identified from targeted databases, journals and websites were reviewed in depth, and six were ultimately included. These six studies, published between 2006 and 2014, encompass seven sets of naturalistic driver data and describe original research that utilized naturalistic methods to assess the effects of distracting behaviors. Four studies involved non-commercial drivers of light vehicles and two studies involved commercial drivers of trucks and buses. Odds ratios quantifying safety-critical event (SCE) risk associated with talking, dialing, locating or answering, and texting or browsing were extracted. Stratified meta-analysis of pooled odds ratios was used to estimate SCE risk by distraction type; meta-regression was used to test for sources of heterogeneity. The results indicate that tasks that require drivers to take their eyes off the road, such as dialing, locating a phone and texting, increase SCE risk to a greater extent than tasks that do not require eyes off the road such as talking. Although talking on a handheld device did not increase SCE risk, further research is required to determine whether it indirectly influences SCE risk (e.g., by encouraging other cell phone activities). In addition, a number of study biases and quality issues of naturalistic driving studies are discussed.     

Shifting attention across near and far spaces: Implications for the use of hands-free cell phones while driving

In three experiments, participants performed two tasks concurrently during driving. In the peripheral detection task, they responded manually to visual stimuli delivered through a LED placed on the internal rear mirror; in the conversation task, they were engaged in a conversation with a passenger, or through earphone-operated, loudspeaker-operated, or hand-held cell phones. Results showed that drivers were slower at responding to the visual stimuli when conversing through a hand-held cell phone or an earphone-operated cell phone than when conversing through a loudspeaker-operated cell phone or with a passenger. These results suggest that due to the brain coding the space into multiple representations, devices that make phone conversations taking place in the near, personal space make drivers slower at responding to visual stimuli, compared to devices that make the conversation occurring in a far space.