Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving
Hypothesis, independent variable, dependent variable of the article attached
Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving Frank A. Drews, Monisha Pasupathi, and David L. Strayer University of Utah This study examines how conversing with passengers in a vehicle differs from conversing on a cell phone while driving. We compared how well drivers were able to deal with the demands of driving when conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and when driving without any distraction. In the conversation conditions, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about past experiences in which their life was threatened. The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increase in the demand of the traffic. The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influence on the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversation on driving. Keywords: shared attention, driver distraction, cell phone conversation, passenger conversation Driving is a complex perceptual and cognitive task. There is ample evidence that driving performance is negatively affected by simultaneously conversing on a cell phone. Previous studies found that cell phone use impairs the driving performance of younger (Alm & Nilsson, 1995; Briem & Hedman, 1995; Brookhuis, De Vries, & De Waard, 1991; Brown, Tickner, & Simmonds, 1969; Goodman et al., 1999; McKnight & McKnight, 1993; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997; Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003; Strayer & Johnston, 2001), and older drivers (Alm & Nilsson, 1995; Strayer et al., 2003). These impairments have been studied using a wide range of methodological paradigms including computer-based tracking tasks (Strayer & Johnston, 2001), high-fidelity simulation (Strayer et al., 2003), driving of vehicles on a closed circuit (Treffner & Barrett, 2005), on-road studies (Crudall, Bains, Chap- man, & Underwood, 2005), and epidemiological studies of car crashes (McEvoy et al., 2005; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997). The level of impairment is comparable to being intoxicated at a blood alcohol level of .08 (Strayer, Drews, & Crouch, 2006). Considering Distracted Driving Impairment With Greater Specificity To understand the implications of performing a secondary task while driving, it is useful to apply a conceptualization of the driving task that can guide the analysis of performance deficits. In his task analysis of driving, Groeger (1999) described three levels of performance (see Michon, 1979, 1985, for similar proposals). The first level of performance is an operational or control level, which involves elements that serve the task of keeping a vehicle on a predetermined course. A deficit at this level is shown, for example, in a reduction of lateral control, that is, the vehicle may drift to the side of the road. A number of studies demonstrated that this operational level is negatively affected by performing an additional task like conversing on a cell phone (Alm & Nilsson, 1995; Haigney & Westerman, 2001; Stein, Parseghian, & Allen, 1987). The second level of performance involves skills needed for maneuvering the vehicle in traffic. This level is called tactical behavior and examples for deficits at this level are approaching other vehicles too closely or ignoring approaching vehicles while turning left at an intersection. Studies that have found deficits on this level of driving performance describe changes in speed (Burns, Parkes, Burton, & Smith, 2002; Horberry, Anderson, Regan, Triggs, & Brown, 2006), changes in acceleration (Strayer & Drews, 2006), and delayed reaction times (Consiglio, Driscoll, Witte, & Berg, 2003) when drivers are engaged in a cell phone conversation. The characterization of driving behavior as “slug- gish” (Strayer et al., 2003) refers to both operational and tactical levels of driving behavior with driving performance changing such that drivers drive and accelerate slower and show longer reaction times when braking (see Drews & Strayer, 2008; Svenson & Patten, 2005, for reviews). The third level involves more executive, goal-directed aspects of driving and reflects strategic performance (Barkley, 2004). Exam- ples for problems at this level are failures in the execution of navigation tasks or trip-related planning tasks. Currently, there is only indirect evidence that deficits on this level can be observed when drivers converse on a cell phone. In their simulator study Ma and Kaber (2005) measured situation awareness—a precondition Frank A. Drews, Monisha Pasupathi, and David L. Strayer, Department of Psychology, University of Utah. Portions of the data presented in this paper have been previously presented at the Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference and been published in the proceedings to this conference (for further reference, see Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2004). We thank two anonymous review- ers for their helpful comments that significantly improved this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frank A. Drews, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530 East, Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail: frank.drews@psych.utah.edu Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 14, No. 4, 392–400 1076-898X/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013119 392
Answers
Status NEW
Posted 21 Nov 2017 08:11 AM
My Price 10.00
----------- ----------- H-----------ell-----------o S-----------ir/-----------Mad-----------am ----------- Th-----------ank----------- yo-----------u f-----------or -----------usi-----------ng -----------our----------- we-----------bsi-----------te -----------and----------- ac-----------qui-----------sit-----------ion----------- of----------- my----------- po-----------ste-----------d s-----------olu-----------tio-----------ns.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age-----------
Not Rated(0)