Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 1107–1112
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and
Prevention
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w.e l s e v i e r.c o m /l o c a t e /a a
p
Psychological predictors of college students’cell phone u while driving
Michèle M.Schlehofer a ,∗,Suzanne C.Thompson b ,Sarah Ting c ,Sharon Ostermann b ,Angela Nierman b ,Jessica Skenderian c
a
Salisbury University,United States b
Pomona College,United States c
Claremont Graduate University,United States
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:
邓稼先和钱学森Received 1July 2009Received in revid form 15December 2009
Accepted 19December 2009Keywords:Cell phone Driving
白芸豆减肥副作用曝光Illusory control
a b s t r a c t
Despite the known risk,many people talk on a phone while driving.This study explored psychological predictors of cell phone u while driving.College students (final N =69)completed a survey and pre-dicted their driving performance both with and without a simultaneous phone conversation.Their actual performance on a driving simulator was then assd.Cell phone u reduced performance on the sim-ulation task.Further,perceiving onelf as good at compensating for driving distractions,overestimating one’s performance on the driving simulator,and high illusory control predicted more frequent cell phone u while driving in everyday life.Finally,tho who talked more frequently on a phone while driving had poorer real-world driving records.The findings suggest illusory control and positive illusions partly explain driver’s decisions of whether to u cell phones while driving.
© 2010 Elvier Ltd. All rights rerved.
1.Introduction
Each year,talking on a cell phone while driving caus an esti-mated 2600motor vehicle-related deaths,330,000moderate to critical injuries,and 1.5million instances of property damage in the United States (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis [HCRA],2002).Talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than talking to an in-car pasnger becau while in-car pasngers regulate their conversations according to driving conditions and warn drivers of impending road hazards,cell phone conversants cannot (e.g.,Crundall et al.,2005;Charlton,2008).Thus,it is no surpri that the driving distractions caud by using a cell phone are not eliminated—and perhaps are not even substantially reduced—by using hands-free phone devices (Goodman,2005;Strayer et al.,2003).
Nevertheless,many people u a cell phone while driving.In 2005,approximately 974,000individuals talked on a hand-held phone while driving at any given moment during daylight hours (Glassbrenner,2005).Young adult drivers (aged 16–24)are more likely to talk on a cell phone while driving than older drivers,and their rates of the practice are increasing (Cramer et al.,2007;Glassbrenner,2005).Seo and Torabi (2004)conducted a large sur-
∗Corresponding author at:Department of Psychology,Salisbury University,1101Camden Ave.,Salisbury,MD 21801,United States.Tel.:+14106770034;fax:+14105482056.
E-mail address:mmschlehofer@salisbury.edu (M.M.Schlehofer).vey on a college campus and found that 86%of drivers surveyed talk on a cell phone while driving at least occasionally,and cell phone u was involved in at least 21%of accidents.
This behavior is not due to a lack of awareness of its dangerous-ness:many people perceive using a cell phone while driving to be a dangerous activity (Seo and Torabi,2004;White et al.,2004),and some even consider it riskier than other activities one can engage in while driving,such as eating (White et al.,2004).How can we understand why many drivers expo themlves to this risk?1.1.Why do people u cell phones while driving?
A growing number of investigators have explored the con-ditions under which people will u cell phones while driving.Driving conditions (e.g.,type of road one is driving on)have lit-tle to no effect on people’s willingness to engage in cell phone u while driving (Lerner and Boyd,2005),with rearch finding that people engage in distractive cell phone tasks regardless of the diffi-culty of their current driving conditions (Horrey and Lesch,2009).Rather,rearch suggests that u of a cell phone while driving is explained better by individual difference variables than by cur-rent driving conditions (Lerner and Boyd,2005).In this study we explore three related psychological individual difference factors that appear particularly promising in explaining phone u while driving:overestimating one’s
ability to compensate for driving dis-tractions,having a general propensity toward illusions of control,and u of a controlling cognitive style.Each of the psychological mechanisms is discusd below.
0001-4575/$–e front matter © 2010 Elvier Ltd. All rights rerved.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.024历历在目的近义词
1108M.M.Schlehofer et al./Accident Analysis and Prevention42 (2010) 1107–1112
1.1.1.Perceptions of ability to compensate
Although people,in general,recognize the dangers of talking on a cell phone while driving(White et al.,2004),individuals may overestimate their own ability to drive safely while conversing on a phone.People often judge that their attributes and skills are bet-ter than tho of a relevant comparison group(Alicke et al.,1995). The beliefs extend to people’s perceptions of their own driving skills.Rearch shows that between70and90%of drivers believe they are safer and more skilled than the average driver(Svenson, 1981;Walton and Bathurst,1998;McCormick et al.,1986;McKenna et al.,1991).Further,people em to be unaware of the extent to which cell phones distract them while driving(Horrey et al.,2008), with women being most susceptible(Lesch and Hancock,2004). Therefore,a strong belief in one’s own ability to compensate for the distraction of cell
phone u could lead people to feel safe while driving and phoning and contribute to more frequent engagement in this activity.
1.1.
2.Illusions of control
There is a well-established body of rearch which suggests peo-ple are motivated to believe they are in control of their environment (e Thompson and Schlehofer,2007,for a review).Illusory con-trol,or overestimations of the control one has in avoiding negative outcomes,can help reduce one’s stress and anxiety(Miller,1979). Illusions of control might be another reason why people frequently u a cell phone while driving.The illusions are widespread, occurring in ttings as diver as laboratory tasks(Alloy and Abramson,1979;Thompson et al.,2004),games of chance(Langer, 1975),gambling decisions(Cantinotti et al.,2004),simulations of stockbroker decisions(Fenton-O’Creevy et al.,2003),and driving behaviors(Horswill and McKenna,1999).Horswill and McKenna (1999),for instance,found that people think that they are less likely to be in an accident when they are the driver than the pasnger in a motor vehicle.Presumably,people feel that they have more control than other drivers would over the driving situ-ation.
Even people who recognize that cell phone u is a distraction while driving may be misled by illusory control to believe that they can control for this distraction and,thereby,not suffer impair-ment to their driving.If this is the ca,then we would expect that tho who generally are more prone to illusory control will be more frequent cell phone urs while driving.
1.1.3.Controlling cognitive style
Finally,talking on a cell phone while driving could be en as an efficient u of one’s time.Thus,it is also possible that frequent cell phone u while driving has a utilitarian basis by satisfying individ-uals’desire to control their time.The degree to which individuals prefer to control events in their lives has been linked to veral factors,including achievement,stress and coping strategies,health behaviors,and gambling behavior(Burger,1992).Relevant to driv-ing behaviors,a study by Hammond and Horswill(2002)indicated that drivers high in desire for control were more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors than were tho low in desire for control. In addition,multitasking is a high control style that is associated with the Type A personality pattern.Individuals classified as Type A personalities are more likely than Type B personalities to engage in risky driving behaviors,including using a cell phone while driv-ing(Nabi et al.,2004).Similarly,Lerner and Boyd(2005)found that lf-identifying as a multitasker while driving was related to being more willing to engage in cell phone us
e while driving and eing the behavior as less risky.
The time-saving advantages of cell phone u while driving would be particularly attractive to people who have a controlling cognitive style.Thus we expected that a controlling cognitive style, which we define as being a chronic multitasker and having a high desire for control,would be associated with more frequent cell phone u while driving.
1.2.The current study
This study ud the three related psychological factors,one that is specific to cell phone u while driving and two that tap into more general individual differences in control perceptions,to help explain why some individuals u a cell phone while driving.To test the relationship between the predictors(overestimating one’s ability to compensate for driving distractions,a general propensity to illusions of control,and a controlling cognitive style)and driv-ing while using a cell phone,a two-pha study was conducted.In Pha1,participants reported on the extent to which they ud a cell phone while driving in everyday life and answered ques-tions to measure absolute and comparative perceptions of ability to compensate for driving distractions,illusions of control,cognitive styles,and their driving record.
In Pha2,an objective measure of overestimating one’s ability to compensate for cell phone u was obtained by having partic-ipants drive on a driving simulator with and without using a cell phone.We predicted that more frequent everyday driving while using a cell phone would be associated with higher judgments of being able to compensate for driving distractions,being an over-estimator of one’s ability to drive the simulator while using a cell phone,high illusory control,and a controlling cognitive style.
2.Method
2.1.Participants
In Pha I,91participants completed a survey of personality measures and lf-reports of driving behaviors.Two weeks later, participants reporting having a valid driver’s licen(N=86,94.5%) were contacted to complete Pha II of the experiment.Seventy-six participants(88%of tho recruited for the cond pha;83.5%of the initial sample)participated in Pha II.Seven participants indi-cated during Pha II testing that they did not have a valid driver’s licen and were subquently omitted.
三国演义里的故事Thefinal sample consisted of69students(63.8%female)aged 17–22(M=19.03,SD=.69).Seventy-one percent were Caucasian, 14.7%Asian/Pacific Islander,4.4%Hispanic/Latino,and10.3%were multi-raci
al.All participants had a cell phone and a valid driver’s licen1,and53(76.8%)reported using their cell phones while driv-ing.
2.2.Procedure
In thefirst pha,participants completed measures of illusory control,their perceived ability to compensate for cell phone dis-tractions while driving,u of a controlling cognitive style,and lf-reported driving behaviors.Approximately two to three weeks later,participants were contacted and asked to complete Pha II of the experiment.Participants were run in small groups for Pha I and singularly for Pha2.Each participant received either rearch credit in his or her introductory psychology cour,or$5.00com-pensation for taking part in each pha.
In Pha II,participants completed driving simulations via the STISIM program,a driving simulation program developed by Sys-temsTech Inc.The simulation program ran on a desktop computer itor,and included a Microsoft Sidewinder game controller consisting of two foot pedals(a gas pedal and a brake
1N varies across analys due to the fact that N=16participants did not report talking on a cell phone while driving.
M.M.Schlehofer et al./Accident Analysis and Prevention42 (2010) 1107–11121109
pedal)and a steering wheel smaller in size,but structurally simi-lar to that found in a standard automobile.The driving simulation cour consisted of a basic driving task.During the simulation,par-ticipants drove in a rural area in which they were required to stop at veral4-way interctions marked with stop lights and stop signs.There was minimal oncoming traffic on straight-aways and two cross-traffic vehicles at each interction.Participants also had one speeding car pass them on the left-hand side.The task required no turns.The monitor display was similar to that of looking over the dashboard of an automobile with a rear-view mirror.Partici-pants were instructed that they could look out the side windows to view cross-traffic by pressing a button on their steering wheel. Looking out of side windows was not necessary for completion of the driving cour.
There is evidence for the ecological validity of driving simulators (Lee et al.,2003,2007;Lew et al.,2005).For example,Lee et al. (2003)found that performance on the STISIM shared two-thirds of the variance of driving performance bad on a real-world driving index.However,it should be noted that a driving simulation cannot capture all the features of actual driving such as the vere negative conquences of mistakes,so simulators remain an approximation to real-world driving.
The driving simulation task started with a5-min practice ssion followed by a7-min baline ssion.Participants were then given a driving score bad on their baline performance.Scores ranged from95to195,with an average score of163.12(SD=22.17).2Some participants could have received negative objective feedback dur-ing the ,got in a collision),which would undermine natural control perceptions(Thompson et al.,1998).Thus,to avoid this, all participants were given the mildly positive feedback that their performance was“above the average of what people usually do.”
After receiving their score,participants were told that the maxi-mum driving score was200,and were asked to estimate what their score would be if they completed the task under veral conditions: the same conditions,with intermittent noi in the background, under nighttime driving conditions,while talking on a cell phone, while having a conversation with someone in the room,and while eating a hamburger or vegetable burger.Our interest was in the cell phone judgments.The other items were included to disgui the intent of the measure,as at this point,participants did not know that they would be asked to drive the simulator while talking on a phone.
Finally,participants completed two7-min driving tasks,once with no distractions,and once while talking on a hand-held phone. The driving tasks were the same as the baline task,however, the color of passing traffic and appearance of building and trees was modified to reduce task familiarity.T
ask order was counter-balanced across participants to control for order effects.
The hand-held phone ud in the phone task was a small Vtech©brand cordless phone,lected in size to be roughly equivalent to a larger-sized cell phone.During the phone condition,participants had a conversation(without dialing)with a cond experimenter in another room.Bad on a meta-analysis of the impact of cell phone
2The simulator program records driving errors,but does not score driving per-formance;thus,it was necessary to develop a measure for this study.As receiving a negative performance score might undermine control perceptions,wefirst gave everyone a maximum score of200,thus increasing the likelihood that all participants would receive a positive performance score.From this maximum score,points were deducted for driving errors recorded by the program.The driving errors included centerline crossings(−5points for each crossing),road edge excursions(−10points for each),running red lights(−10points),and accidents and collisions(−20points). Deductions for each driving error were weighted in accordance with their likelihood of causing an accident.In the STISIM program,extreme road edge excursions and running red lights always resulted in an accident,while centerline crossings only resulted in an accident if there was oncoming traffic.Thus,road edge excursions and running red lights were weighted more heavily than versations while driving,
Horrey and Wickens(2006)suggested that stronger effects will be found with more inten and emotion-ally involving conversations.Thus,participants had their choice of two topics,both of which were expected to require a level of emo-tional involvement that can be found in real-life cell phone u situations:the war in Iraq,or gay marriage.Topics were assigned in order to standardize the conversation as much as possible across participants.For each conversation topic,the cond experimenter asked participants a ries of pre-scripted questions through the duration of the driving cour.
2.3.Measures
开业庆典策划
2.3.1.Pha I measures
2.3.1.1.Frequency of cell phone u while driving.Participants reported whether they ud a cell phone while driving.For tho who responded“yes”to this initial question,they were asked,“How often do you u a cell phone while driving?”rated on a7-point Likert scale ranging from1=very ldom to7=very often.
蝉鸣空桑林
2.3.1.2.Illusory control.Participants completed Friedland et al.’s (1992)illusory control measure that asss perceived control over uncontrollable events via hypothetical situations;for instance, by as
king the respondent to indicate whether they would rather choo their own lottery ticket numbers or rely on the machine to choo.The scale consisted of4items assd on a10-point Likert ,“let the machine choo for me”to“choo the ticket mylf”).Respons were added together to create a com-posite measure,with higher numbers indicative of greater illusory control.
2.3.1.3.Controlling cognitive style.Participants completed two scales that together tap into having a controlling cognitive style. First,participants completed the Desire for Control Scale(Burger and Cooper,1979),which asss the extent to which they desire having control in their lives(˛=.77).The scale consists of20items rated on a7-point respon scale ranging from1=does not apply to me at all to7=always applies to me.Sample items are,“I enjoy having control over my own destiny,”and“I enjoy being able to influ-ence the actions of others.”Second,participants completed9items, designed for this study,to asss the extent to which they prefer to multitask(˛=.83).Items were rated on a7-point Likert scale ranging from1=not at all like me to7=just like me.Sample items included“I hate to waste time”and“I prefer to work on veral tasks at once.”The two measures were significantly correlated(r=.31, p<.001),so they were standardized and averaged together to cre-ate a single measure of controlling style.Higher numbers indicate higher controlling style.
2.3.1.4.Driving record.Participants responded to4items asssing their driving record(˛=.74).First,the
y indicated the frequency with which they drive over the posted speed limit on a7-point Likert scale ranging from1=not at all to7=frequently.Then,they were asked to report the number of accidents they have had since getting their licen,the number of times they were pulled over for a moving violation,and the number of times they were ticketed for a moving violation.The items were standardized by transforming them into z-scores(M=0,SD=1)and averaged together to create a driving record measure where higher numbers correspond to a wor record.
2.3.1.5.Perceived ability to compensate.Participants completed both absolute and comparative measures to asss the extent to which they felt they could compensate for cell phone-related distractions while driving.As a measure of absolute asssment, participants were asked,“To what extent can you compensate for
1110M.M.Schlehofer et al./Accident Analysis and Prevention42 (2010) 1107–1112
using a cell phone while driving?”on a7-point Likert scale ranging from1=not at all to7=very much.To asss comparative judg-ments,participants were asked,“Compared to the average student (at your college),to what extent can you compensate for using a cell phone while driving?”measured on a7-point Likert scale ranging from−3=much wor than average to3=much better than average, with a
mid-point of0=about average.The two measures were sig-nificantly correlated(r=.57,p<.001),and thus were standardized and averaged together to create one of our variables reprenting perceived ability to compensate for cell phone u.Higher numbers indicate stronger beliefs that one is good at compensating for cell phone distractions.
2.3.2.Pha II measures
2.3.2.1.Objective measure of overestimating ability.Self-reports of ability to compensate for cell phone distractions,although a com-mon way of measuring overestimations,are difficult to interpret, as they do not distinguish between tho who can,in fact,com-pensate for the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving and tho who believe they can,but cannot.Thus we included an objective measure of whether or not participants over-estimate their actual ability to compensate for cell phone driving distractions.
The measure was calculated by subtracting actual driving per-formance on a driving simulator while using a cell phone from predicted performance.Positive scores indicate overestimations of ability to drive while using a cell phone.A dichotomous measure of overestimation was created by assigning overestimation scores to two groups:1=accurate or underestimation of performance while using cell phone;2=overestimation of performance while using cell phone.3
3.Results
3.1.Preliminary data analys
Prior to testing the hypothesis,the influence of using a cell phone on scores on the computer simulation task was explored.A one-way within subjects ANOVA,comparing performance scores on the driving simulator when participants were not talking on the cell phone to their scores when they were,was significant,t(68)=4.47, p<.001,Á2=.23.Consistent with prior ,Strayer and Johnston,2001),driving scores were lower(M=157.6,SD=25.7) with a phone conversation than without(M=170.0,SD=20.2),a finding which adds validity to the driving simulation task ud in this study as a method of asssing driving performance.
Bivariate relationships between the variables were examined. The correlations,along with descriptive statistics for the mea-sures,are displayed in Table1.As can be en in Table1,frequency of driving while using a cell phone was positively associated with illusory control,perceived ability to compensate for cell phone u while driving,and a controlling cognitive style.Although not sta-tistically significant,overestimation of one’s performance while using a phone during the driving simulation task was also posi-tively associated with participants’frequency of driving while using a ce
ll phone.None of the four measures being ud to understand cell phone u were intercorrelated,all r’s<|.18|.However,over-estimating performance on the simulator and perceptions of one’s ability to compensate for driving with a cell phone were both sta-tistically significantly associated,and frequency of cell phone u 3The continuous measure of overestimation did not correlate with other mea-
sures in the study possibly becau whether or not one overestimates is an important issue,but the degree of overestimation is not.Thus the dichotomous variable was ud in the analys.while driving and a controlling cognitive style were marginally correlated with a wor real-world driving record.4
Finally,gender differences on scores on all variables were explored.Consistent with prior rearch(Lesch and Hancock,2004) there was a trend such that women(M=1.37,SD=.49)were marginally more likely than men(M=1.15,SD=.37)to overesti-mate their performance on the driving simulator task(t(73)=1.96, p<.06).There were no other gender effects.
3.2.Hypothesis test
李世民杨妃
To test the hypothesis that the four measures could help explain frequency of cell phone u while dr
iving in everyday life,a simul-taneous entry multiple regression analysis was conducted with frequency of cell phone u as the dependent variable and judging that one has the ability to compensate for cell phone distractions, the objective measure of overestimating one’s ability to compen-sate,a propensity to illusory control thinking,and a controlling cognitive style as independent variables.The model was adjusted for baline scores on the driving simulator becau they were marginally related to frequency of cell phone u.The regression was significant,R=.66,F(5,47)=7.1,p<.001,accounting for43% of the variance in frequency of cell phone u(adjusted R2).Illu-sory control(ˇ=.27,p<.05)and perceived ability to compensate for distractions(ˇ=.48,p<.001)made independent significant con-tributions to the prediction of frequency of cell phone u.Tho higher in illusory control and in beliefs that they could compen-sate were more frequent cell phone urs while driving.There was a trend for tho overestimating their ability to drive the sim-ulator while talking on a cell phone to report more frequently using a cell phone while driving(ˇ=.20,p<.10).Overestimating one’s ability was associated with more frequent cell phone u in everyday life.Despite the significance of the bivariate correla-tion,u of a controlling cognitive style did not make a significant independent contribution to the model(ˇ=.18,n.s.).5Thus,the hypothesis was confirmed with the proviso that the relationship between a controlling cognitive style and frequency of cell phone driving was not independent of the other factors in the multiple regression.
4.Discussion
Driving while using a cell phone is dangerous(HCRA,2002),yet millions of people do this everyday(Glassbrenner,2005).Younger adults,in particular,have high rates of cell phone u while driving (Glassbrenner,2005),and this rate of usage is likely only to grow with the incread availability and affordability of cellular technol-ogy.The current study assd the ability of psychological factors to predict lf-rated frequency of driving while talking on a cell phone.
Ourfindings are consistent with prior rearch on the negative effects cell phone u has on driving performance(HCRA,2002; Strayer and Johnston,2001),highlighting both the importance of
4The procedure of counting both the lf-reported number of times participants had been pulled over for a moving violation and the number of times ticketed in the measure of driving record might have double-counted some events in which participants both got pulled over and were ticketed.Thus,two other versions of this measure were created and tested,using either the number of times pulled over or the number of times ticketed in the driving record variable.The correlations with the alternative versions of the driving record variable are in the same direction and strength as reported here.
5The data were also analyzed using desire for control and multitasking as parate predictors.Keepi
ng the two variables as parate predictors did not change the pattern of results.Both were still insignificant in thefinal model,while the remaining predictors were significant or marginally significant.
M.M.Schlehofer et al./Accident Analysis and Prevention42 (2010) 1107–11121111 Table1
Correlations of illusory control,ability to compensate,controlling cognitive style,overestimation of performance,and driving record with frequency of everyday cell phone u while driving.
123456
1.Illusory control a–
2.Perceived ability to compensate a,b−.10–
3.Controlling cognitive style a,b.13.09–
4.Overestimation of cell phone driving performance
on simulator a
−.17−.02.06–
5.Frequency of driving cell phone u a.29*.47***.30*.14–
6.Driving record b,c−.11.33*.29+.32*.30+–
M(SD)28.25(5.20)−.07(.99).00(.81) 1.29(.46) 3.21(1.71)−.05(.71)
a Higher scores indicate greater prence of the construct.
b Average of standardized scores.空13师
c Higher score means a wor driving record.
*p<.05.
***p<.001.
+p<.10.
rearching predictors of decisions to u cell phones while driving, and verifying the validity of our driving performance measure and our asssment of frequency of cell phone u.Interestingly,the psychological factors studied in this investigation,while sharing conceptual similarity and independen
tly contributing to variability in the frequency of which participants reported using a cell phone while driving,were not correlated at the bivariate level.Thefind-ings offer many avenues for future rearch into the psychological predictors of decisions to talk on a cell phone while driving.
Thefirst conclusion that can be drawn from thefindings is that there is an element of illusion or overly optimistic thinking involved in decisions of driving cell phone u.That is,people who frequently u a cell phone while driving are tho who feel a n of con-trol over their driving performance and who perceive themlves to be skilled at compensating for driving distractions,regardless of whether they actually have the skills.On the surface,this may not em surprising,given that positive illusions are rather com-mon thought process(Taylor and Brown,1988).However,the results go beyond prior rearch to suggest that more than one posi-tive illusion is simultaneously involved in this decision.Further,we can infer that participants are indeed displaying positive illusions, rather than accurately asssing that they are better than simi-lar others at compensating for cellular phone distractions,becau many high lf-asssment individuals overestimated their perfor-mance on the driving simulation task.
Second,ourfinding that people who more frequently u a cell phone while driving in everyday life tended to overestimate their driving simulator performance while using a phone suggests that, indep
endent of illusory or optimistic thinking,some people may be unaware of the extent to which carrying on a conversation can impair their driving performance.Tho who overestimated their ability may not be as attuned to information about cell phone effects on driving or may be less attentive to how it affects their perfor-mance.Further,when asked to consider a specific driving situation (the simulator)about a quarter(28%)of the participants overesti-mated how well they would drive when speaking on a phone;the individuals tended to be more likely to drive and u a cell phone.
Finally,although people who have a controlling cognitive style (defined in the current investigation as having a high desire for con-trol and multitasking)are more likely to drive and u a cell phone, this effect is not independent of the influence of positive illusions on this behavior.Further,as controlling cognitive style was not cor-related at the bivariate level with any of the other independent variables,we can conclude that no particular positive illusion medi-ated this relationship.Rather,the results suggest that the positive illusion variables as a t explained the effect of having a control-ling cognitive style on decisions to u a cell phone while driving, suggesting that positive illusions are perhaps more relevant predic-tors of decisions to u a cell phone while driving than are desire for control or multitasking.
4.1.Implications
Thefindings have implications for future rearch on why people continue to u cell phones while driving.The results sug-gest that veral types of inflated lf-perceptions were correlated with the frequency of using a cell phone while driving.The next step is to u an experimental design to manipulate perceptions such as illusory control and a better-than-average judgment to establish a causal link between the factors and phone u while driving. If that link is confirmed,then rearch can focus on undermin-ing individuals’illusions of control and better-than-average beliefs regarding their ability to talk on a cell phone and drive at the same time.Prior rearch indicates that the experience of negative feedback about one’s performance is an effective way to challenge positive illusions.For instance,Thompson et al.(2002)asked par-ticipants to identify who of veral individuals had HIV/AIDS.Most participants performed poorly on this test,and tho who did perform poorly had subquently incread feelings of personal susceptibility becau the experience undermined the perception that one can detect HIV in potential partners.Further,rearch finds that better-than-average beliefs can be substantially reduced when one experiences poorer performance in relation to one’s peers(Alicke et al.,1995).Extrapolating from thefindings,hav-ing drivers go through a driving simulator which demonstrates the negative effect that cell phone u has on their driving behavior, coupled with information that their driving impairment is com-parable to the average driver,could undermine both illusions of control and the better-than-average effect,and subquently result in a reduction of cell phone while driving behavior.
4.2.Limitations
This study,which provided an initial attempt to explore psycho-logical predictors of decisions to u a cell phone while driving,is not without its limitations.The sample,which consisted of college students,was rather small and may not be reprentative of many drivers.Unfortunately,the small sample size does not permit anal-ys of gender and other important inter-personal differences in driving behavior and cell phone u.More importantly,the simu-lator,although a valid measure of real-world driving behavior in some contexts,does not fully mimic the complexity under which driving decisions occur.Further,some aspects of the driving task, such as the limitingfield of view pod by the computer screen and the procedure of having to press a button to look out the side mirrors,are not naturalistic.The simulation procedures in this
