Txt240ppr

Running Head: Texting and Driving

Texting and Driving

John Webster Amory

Health 2400_002

Clemson University

Texting and Driving 2

HEALTH BEHAVIOR

Texting while driving is a growing issue in the United States that many teens and

parents disregard because they feel their skills overcome its inherent risk. Cell phone use,

primarily texting, is the considerable force behind this rise in distracted driving (Madden

and Rainie, 2010). With the number of people being injured as a result of this behavior

rising by the thousands each year, this clearly is a matter to be handled with the utmost

seriousness. Even with texting and driving injury rates skyrocketing, however, citizens

across America continue to engage in this dangerous activity (NHTSA, 2011). Distracted

driving has no age discretion, and the issue at hand lies behind our entire society’s

increasing reliance on technology paired with its’ fear of being out of the loop; even for

the duration of a short drive. The aim of this article is to uncover the facts behind texting

while driving, reveal why our society continues to engage in the activity despite the

salient risks, and to offer up solutions that curb the number of distracted driving injuries

and fatalities, ultimately making America’s roads safer.

STATISTICS

Among the teenage and college age population, the prevalence of texting while

driving is tremendous (NHTSA, 2011). In fact, 59% of the millennial generation readily

stated that they engage in texting and driving (Madden and Rainie, 2010). This

stratospheric numbers translates to the sobering fact that our most inexperienced drivers

are engrossing themselves in an activity that diverts their attention away for a minimum

of five seconds at a time. (NHTSA, 2011). According to Transportation Secretary Ray

LaHood, “At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is travelling the length of a

football field, including end zones, without looking at the road” (Tel, 2010). While it is

common knowledge that teenagers are the primary offenders of distracted driving, the

number of adults who engage their cell phones behind the wheel is alarming. According

to a study done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, approximately 47% of

adult drivers openly admitted to texting while driving (Madden and Rainie, 2010). Quite

possibly the most worrying figure, however, is that the NHTSA states that there are over

800,000 vehicles being piloted by drivers using their cell phones “at any given moment

during daylight hours” (NHTSA, 2011). That equates to vehicles being blindly piloted


nearly 11,000 miles every second on US roads, causing over 1.6 million accidents every

year (National Safety Council, 2010).

GRAPH 1: Distracted Driving Crash Data by Year

HEALTH OUTCOMES

When a driver chooses to engage in texting while operating a motor vehicle, their

likelihood of being involved in an accident increases 23 times over (Tel, 2010). That

stratospheric escalation equates to 28% of all crashes being attributed to distracted

driving (Lane, 2010). From these accidents stem an estimated 421,000 people being

injured as a result of distracted driving last year alone (Naylor, 2013). Furthermore, in

2011, there were over 3,300 reported fatalities being attributed to distracted driving

(NHTSA, 2011). Car accident injuries can have negative effects on one’s social, physical,

and even psychological health. According to a study done by the International Institute

for Science, Technology, and Education, the driver or passengers involved in the accident

can suffer from depression stemming from guilt (Jabali et al, 2013). Often times with

depression come a decline in one’s family life, social life, physical activity, and even


sleeping habits, leading to a general condition of malaise (American Psychological

Association, 2014). In extreme cases where there are serious injuries or there is loss of

life, posttraumatic stress disorder often follows, plaguing the effected for years down the

road (NIMH, 2012). It is essential that people think beyond themselves before looking

down at their phones, for the potential negative health outcomes are grave.

HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020

Healthy People 2020 recognizes the need to reduce motor vehicle accidents and

traffic fatalities due to distracted driving through its goal of violence and injury

prevention. It specifically targets the issue of texting while driving through objectives

IVP-13 and IVP-14. The first objective, IVP-13, zeroes in on reducing motor vehicle

crash-related deaths per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles travelled.

Objective number two, IVP-14, focuses on reducing non-fatal motor vehicle crash-related

injuries. By educating the population with the Fatality Analysis Reports from Healthy

People 20/20, hopefully the dangers behind texting and driving can be revealed,

ultimately encouraging people to discontinue cell phone use while piloting a motor

vehicle.

INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS

Texting and driving is a behavior that is heavily influenced by many intrapersonal

factors. Intrapersonal factors are elements within an individual, such as attitudes, values,

beliefs, socioeconomic status, knowledge, or even psychological characteristics that are

shown to influence or drive a person to behave in a particular way. An individual’s

perception on their ability to operate their cellular device plays a huge role in one’s

propensity to engage in the behavior. According to a Translational Research for Injury

Prevention study, participants who were comfortable using their cellphones significantly

more likely to drive distracted (Stavrinos, 2009). Furthermore, a study performed by the

NHTSA found that 25% of drivers, particularly teens and younger drivers, were of the

perception that using a cellular device while driving has zero effect on their driving

performance. Socioeconomic status also plays a role into perception, with the NHTSA

report stating that those with the lowest income are most likely to believe that texting

while driving does not impact their ability to drive safely and responsibly. Moreover, as

the income of an individual increases, the likelihood of an individual to drive distracted is


shown to decrease (NHTSA, 2011). Age is another intrapersonal factor that can drive

one’s tendency to drive distracted. The older a driver is, the less likely they are to text

and drive. (Issar, Kadakia, Tsahkis, et al, 2013). This is because the older generations

have less technical skill and lower exposure to the use of this technology. Older people

are much less likely to drive distracted because they place a higher value on safety than

on communication with others (Stravinos, 2009). Teens and millennials, on the other

hand, are more inclined to engage in the behavior due to the fact they feel more

comfortable, and are generally more frequent users of cell phones (Atchley, Atwood,

Boulton, 2011). Additionally, teens are of the attitude that they are invincible, making

them more likely to engross themselves in their phones, disregarding the dangers of being

distracted on the road. Another intrapersonal factor that specifically plays into younger

drivers’ penchant to text and drive is the high value the generation places on being in

contact with friends (Chaudhary, Cosgrove, Tison, 2011). An individual’s knowledge

towards the dangers of and regulations placed on distracted driving, however, worryingly

plays a small role in reducing the proclivity to drive distracted. In a Massachusetts study,

79.3% of the polled population was knowledgeable of a new law banning cell phone use

while operating a motor vehicle. Only a paltry 22% stated that they would actually follow

the law (Savitz, 2013). Even with solidified knowledge of the law and the danger these

rules are trying to protect the population from, one’s attitude towards texting while

driving trumps facts and statistics. Furthermore, 95.7% of drivers are of the opinion that

texting while driving is a serious danger and impacts highway safety, and 94.4% believed

that it was unacceptable for motorists to text and drive. Yet of those polled, 34.6% of

people do not act on their beliefs and openly admitted to sending emails and texting while

on the road (Arnold, Hamilton, Tefft, 2013). Overall, the intrapersonal level in the health

belief model has major implications for predicting how drivers are going to act behind the

wheel.

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS

Factors that push one to text while driving a vehicle also fall onto the interpersonal level.

The sphere of interpersonal factors largely deals with influences regarding one’s social

support systems and the subsequent interactions the individual has with them. Family,

friends, work groups, specific clubs, and even affiliations with doctors all are categorized


within interpersonal factors. Specific behaviors or attitudes that are held by the social

networks and groups that an individual is associated with tend to influence and drive a

specific behavior.

In many instances, the behavior of texting while driving is a learned behavior by

observation of one’s family members. In fact, 69% of teens that text and drive have

parents or guardians that readily engage in the distracted behavior as well. Furthermore,

teens have been shown to feel inclined to respond to a text message from a parent that is

received while they are driving. To reduce instances of this, parents should refrain from

texting their children while they are on the road (NHTSA, 2011). Family, however, is

also an interpersonal factor that can greatly reduce, or even eliminate the behavior of

texting while driving. Having parents discuss the dangers and hazards that are inherent

with texting and driving with their children can discourage the behavior. To drive the

point home further with young drivers, having a physician educate the driver on the

associated risks can also reduce the desire to drive distracted (Lee, Champagne,

Francescutti, 2013).

Friend groups are one of the most direct interpersonal factors that drive the

behavior to text while operating a motor vehicle. The popularity of using texting as a

means of instant and constant communication has been growing significantly as our

society’s reliance on technology increases. Now more than ever, individuals are ever so

inclined to always be in contact with their friend groups to keep in the loop (Liao and

Wan, 2009). Individuals whose social groups are mainly maintained over the Internet,

cellphone, and other digital mediums are more likely to engage in texting while driving

(Grellhesl and Punyanunt-Carter, 2012). Alarmingly, teenage drivers are even more

likely to engage in distracted driving when they have their friends in the car, multiplying

the number of individuals at risk by many factors (Ginsburg et al, 2008). Unsurprisingly,

in an Accident Analysis & Prevention study, individuals are most likely to text while

driving if the text messages are being sent to, or involve their significant other (Atchley et

al, 2011).


ORGANIZATIONAL, SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, & ENVIORNMENT FACTORS

While interpersonal level factors play an important role in behavioral

determination, there are more microenvironment spheres of influence that are important

to consider. One’s proclivity to engage in the behavior of texting while driving can also

be influenced by organizational, community, environmental, and policy factors.

Specific organizations, such as the Distracted Driving Foundation, Teens Against

Distracted Driving, The Safe Texting Campaign, Text Free Driving, The AAA

foundation for Traffic Safety, and hundreds more are geared towards reducing texting

and driving. These organizations raise awareness and educate drivers on just how

dangerous the behavior is to themselves and the road users around them, discouraging

one from using their cellphone on the road. Furthermore, becoming active in these

organizations gives drivers pointers on alternative ways to disengage in the behavior. One

specific method the Distracted Driving Foundation offers up is to set up an autoreply for

texts while in the car. This way the driver is less inclined to feel the need to respond to a

message, lest they be rude (Distracted Driving Foundation, 2013). Additionally, AT&T

offers a free app called AT&T DriveMode, which disables phone calls, texting, and web

use for drivers when they are in the car and the vehicle is in motion (AT&T, 2014). By

making education, awareness, and technology readily available to the population,

organizations make a sizeable impact on behavioral determination.

Communities and the corresponding relationships they have with organizations,

along with one’s built physical environment are more important factors that are related to

the behavior of texting and driving. Local areas can support organizations’ desires to

reduce the number of distracted drivers on the road. AT&T’s It Can Wait simulator is a

virtual reality simulator that educates participants on how hard it really is to text and

drive. The company makes its showcases on the behavior a community wide event,

encouraging everyone in the area to participate. This raises public awareness and

increases education on the matter in a way that is accessible to all (AT&T, 2014).

Advertisements aired on local television stations or pasted up on billboards also are

mechanisms that are used to reduce texting while driving. These advertisements can

target specific population groups, such as teens, to further strengthen the impact they

have on lessening the prevalence rate of this behavior. Churches and schools also play a


community level role in texting while driving behavior. Having speakers come to one’s

place of worship or learning environment to share personal stories about the dangers of

the behavior can greatly reduce the prevalence of the behavior within that group. The End

Distracted Driving campaign, commonly known as the EndDD campaign, does just that,

with hundreds of professionals across North America visiting community level

organizations and bringing about change in the area (EndDD.org, 2014).

While the above multilevel influencing factors undoubtedly modify behavior by

raising awareness through education, advertisements, and activities, it is public policy

that enforces and ultimately draws the line on what behaviors are acceptable in society.

According to distraction.gov, “41 States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S.

Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers” (NHTSA, 2011). This means that

across the majority of the United States, drivers are breaking the law if they are texting

and driving. In fact there are just three states, with South Carolina being one of them,

which have no bans on any form of distracted driving. When there are laws against a

specific behavior, one’s tendency to engage in the behavior decreases. Officers are able

to enforce the law by giving out costly tickets to those who are caught texting and

driving, decreasing the cost-benefit ratio of texting while driving. The law of economics

applies here: by making the perceived costs of texting while driving higher than the

perceived benefits, there is little to no rationale behind doing so. Overall, public policies,

and enforcing them as such, are strong factors that shape behavior (NHTSA, 2011).

INFLUENTIAL FACTORS

There are a myriad of factors that influence and ultimately drive the behavior of

texting while driving. These influences are organized into the groupings of predisposing

factors, enabling factors, and reinforcing factors. Each group inherently influences the

behavior of texting while driving in a fundamentally different way. Predisposing factors

are at foundation of a behavior and often times play a role in influence before the

behavior is even seen in an individual. Examples of predisposing factors are a culture’s

normative beliefs, perceptions, or even one’s values, attitudes, and beliefs. Enabling

factors are what begin to drive and enable one to act in a specific way and revolve around

accessibility, barriers to entry, and one’s particular knowledge or skill. Reinforcing


factors perpetuate one’s propensity to continue performing a behavior by providing

positive feedback and rewards for behaving in a particular manner.

Predisposing Factors

1) The Socioeconomic status of an individual is correlated with texting while driving

as the lowest income are the most likely to believe that texting while driving does

not impact their ability to drive safely and responsibly (NHTSA, 2011).

2) Teens and younger drivers were of the perception that using a cellular device

while driving has zero effect on their driving performance (NHTSA, 2011).

3) As the income of an individual increases, the likelihood of an individual to drive

distracted is shown to decrease (NHTSA, 2011).

4) An individual’s knowledge towards the dangers of and regulations placed on

distracted driving plays a small role in reducing the proclivity to drive distracted

(Savitz, 2013).

5) Drivers who are of the opinion that texting while driving is a serious danger and

impacts highway safety are less likely to engage in the behavior (Arnold,

Hamilton, Tefft, 2013).

6) The older a driver is, the less likely they are to text and drive because older

generations have less technical skill and lower exposure to the use of technology

(Stravinos, 2009).

7) Older people are much less likely to drive distracted because they place a higher

value on safety than on the reward of communication with others (Stravinos,

2009).

8) Young drivers penchant to text and drive is driven by the reward the generation

receives by being in constant contact with friends (Tison, Chaudhary, Cosgrove,

2011).

Enabling Factors

1) An individual’s ability to operate their cellular device plays a huge role in one’s

propensity to engage in the behavior as individuals who are skilled in using their

cellphones were found to be significantly more likely to drive distracted

(Stavrinos, 2009).


2) Parental discussion about the dangers and hazards that are inherent with texting

and driving with their children discourages the behavior (Lee, Champagne,

Francescutti, 2013).

3) Public policy enforces and ultimately draws the line on texting while driving

being unacceptable in society (NHTSA, 2011).

4) Having a physician educate the driver on the associated risks can also reduce the

desire to drive distracted (Lee et al, 2013).

5) Officers enforcing the law by giving out costly tickets to those who are caught

texting and driving, decrease the cost-benefit ratio of texting while driving (AAA

Foundation, 2013).

Reinforcing Factors

1) Having teens sign a contract stating their driving privileges will be taken away if

they text and drive eliminates the reward of texting while driving (AAA

Foundation, 2013).

2) Individuals are more likely to stop texting while driving if a friend in the vehicle

with them tells them the behavior is making them uncomfortable

(TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).

3) Encouragement from friends in the vehicle increase the likelihood of one to

engage in distracted driving; multiplying the number of individuals at risk by

many factors (Ginsburg et al, 2008).

4) Teens that have parents or guardians that readily engage in texting while driving

tend to participate in the distracted behavior as well (NHTSA, 2011).

5) Individuals whose social groups are mainly maintained over the Internet,

cellphone, and other digital mediums are more likely to engage in texting while

driving (Grellhesl and Punyanunt-Carter, 2012).

6) Joining certain groups or clubs that are openly against dangerous behavior such as

texting while driving drastically reduce participant’s likelihood to engage in the

behavior (TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).

7) Individuals are most likely to text while driving if the text messages are being sent

to, or involve their significant other (Atchley et al, 2011).


Analysis of Predisposing Factors

Unsurprisingly, predisposing factors play a large role in behavioral determination.

It is very important to nip the behavior at the bud before there is an actual occurrence.

Therefore, having physicians drill the dangers of the behavior into a child’s head before

they even begin driving greatly reduces the chance of them ever texting while driving

(Lee et al, 2013). Younger drivers have been exposed to technology for almost their

entire lives, which increases their likelihood to use a cell phone for texting while on the

road simply because cell phones are a regular part of their life. Additionally, younger

drivers are usually in a lower socioeconomic class, which has shown to be directly

correlated with one’s prospect of engaging in the behavior (NHTSA, 2011). While one

may be knowledgeable on the laws and regulations put in place to reduce texting and

driving, it is the individual’s actual beliefs and opinions that associate with actual

reductions in texting while driving (Arnold et al, 2013; Savitz, 2013).

Analysis of Enabling Factors

In regards to enabling factors, one’s technical skill plays a large role in

determining how likely they are to text while driving. With older generations, this

technology is difficult to use which makes them less likely to text in the first place. With

the young generations, however, the higher technological fluency masks the obvious

dangers of texting while driving. Therefore younger generations are more likely to text

while driving (Stravinos, 2009). Building on this, when teenagers see their parents texting

while driving they, in turn, are also more likely to do so. This is because parental

behavior facilitates and shows a child what is allowed. By not engaging in the behavior,

along with having open discussion with a child about texting while driving, the

propensity to text while driving is greatly reduced (Lee, et al, 2013). Individuals who

largely maintain relationships over social networks or on the Internet are more likely to

text while driving, especially if that relationship is with a significant other (Grellhesl and

Punyanunt-Carter, 2012; Atchley et al, 2011). Ultimately, however, one’s behavior is

most influenced by social groups they are in, and the laws that surround their community

(NHTSA,2011; TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).


Analysis of Reinforcing Factors

With reinforcing factors, the main driver behind this sphere of influence is the

reward for engaging in the behavior. With elderly drivers, the reward of safety trumps all,

meaning the reward of socialization while driving takes the backseat. Younger drivers

however are centrically focused on safety, meaning that they place a much higher reward

on being able to be connected with the world around them at all times (Stravinos, 2009;

Tison et al, 2011). Parents can reduce the reward of texting while driving by contractually

revoking driving privileges if their teens are engaging in the behavior (AAA Foundation,

2013). Officers of the law also reduce the reward of texting while driving by making the

financial and legal risk of doing high (distraction.gov, 2014). Despite all of this, social

influences have a large impact on behavior, and the difference between a distracted

driving accident and a safe arrival can oftentimes be determined by the influence the

passengers are exerting on a driver (TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013; Ginsburg et al., 2008).

Model Graphic: The 4 P’s of Influence

Perception-Percieved dangers, skills, & norms -Self-Efficacy

Peers-Peer Norms -Peer Pressure

Policy-Laws& Enforcement -Punishment

Place-Environment -Education -Community -Family -SES


HEALTH BEHAVIOR THEORIES

Analyzing health behavior theories and choosing a model relevant to a specific

behavior is an important method of implementing change in society. These models have a

proven track record, and act as outlets through which complex behavior change processes

are simplified, organized, and presented in a concise manner. Furthermore, theory acts a

predictor of human behavior, allowing effective intervention methods to be implemented

on the primary prevention level (Theory at a Glance, 2005). In the realm of the behavior

of texting while driving, The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value model (SEEV),

The Multiple-Resource Model, and The Theory of Planned Behavior play a role in

changing this behavior at the intrapersonal level.

The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value Model: SEEV

In the book, Driver Distraction, by Michael A, Regan, John D. Lee, and Kristie L.

Young, the SEEV model is used to analyze how texting while driving drastically reduces

one’s ability to react to the environment around them. In the study it was discovered that

nearly a quarter of accidents are caused by distracted behaviors. Furthermore, per the

SEEV theory, there are a multitude of factors that influence the behavior with varying

degrees of severity. These include factors such biological attraction to objects such as

phones, social roles, skill, and human capacity to multi-task. The study struggled to

develop an intervention and ultimately concluded that, “at best, driver distraction can be

effectively managed” (Lee, Regan, and Young, 2008).

The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value Model aims to break down how the

eyes, brain, and conscious work together to allocate visual attentiveness towards a given

task at hand. The term salience refers to one’s attentiveness towards stimuli that stand out

from the rest of the background environment such as street signs, stoplights, and

emergency vehicles (Lee et al, 2008). When a driver is texting, their visual attention is

turned away from the road, and thus away from the bold visual aids that are part of our

highway system. Distraction from these salient elements hinders one’s ability to respond

to the ever-changing stimuli on our roadways, increasing the danger to themselves and

road users around them (NHTSA, 2011). Effort is a construct that outlines the strain

required by the brain and eyes to constantly adjust between a small phone screen and the

environment beyond the windshield as a driver engages in texting while driving. Due the


large distance discrepancy between a phone in ones hand and a vehicle one hundred

meters up the road, the brain and eyes are forced to make continual adjustments. This

process requires a considerable amount of mental capacity and consequently competes

with the capacity of the brain to process environmental stimuli. Because of this the brain

may not pick up on roadway hazards or dangerous situations, increasing the likelihood of

an accident. Expectancy refers to the way in which drivers observe the road. As one

drives, and gains experience driving, the eyes are trained to look out for certain risks on

the road. When a driver is looking at and using a cellular device inside the vehicle,

however, their ability to pick out potentially dangerous situations is hindered.

Furthermore, the eye becomes less trained on detecting hazards and reacting

appropriately as time goes on. Finally, value is the construct that analyzes how our brain

prioritizes, or places value on, certain stimuli and processes. There is little danger when

texting at a stoplight may make a driver slow to react to a green light. The issue comes

into play when our value placed on texting is higher than the value put on responding to

an emergency situation on the road.

By breaking down this model into its respective constructs, one can observe how

an individual’s limited visual attentiveness is further occupied by texting on a cell phone.

The only proven way to remediate this issue is by abstaining from using a cell phone on

the road. Per the SEEV, no amount of practice or skill can overcome the inherent biology

behind how our brain allocates visual resources (Lee et al, 2008).

Multiple-Resource Model

The Multiple-Resource Model was also applied in Driver Distraction and seeks to dissect

how one’s ability to drive is impacted when their attention is divided. When we choose to

text and drive we are multitasking. The Multiple-Resource model can predict how

successfully an individual can multitask depending on the level of demand a task has on

the brain. While one may perceive they are a skilled at multitasking, the activities they

are engaging in generally have a low demand on the brain’s bandwidth and are of little

health risk. Tasks such as getting dressed while talking on the phone fall into this

category. Texting, on the other hand, requires a high level of focus due to a multitude of

factors such as typing accurately, punctuation, and reading the messages. Driving also

requires a large amount of the brain’s attention. The combination of these two brain


intensive tasks, then, is a recipe for an accident on the roadway. The specific brain

pathways used when performing an activity is another component that can predict how

well one is able to multitask. According to The Multiple-Resource Model, the actions of

texting, and driving both occupy the brain’s spatial-visual pathway. This means that two

inherently high demand behaviors are also competing for space in the brain. The final

component of this model is how the brain allocates its resources when multitasking.

When one is texting and driving the brain has to choose which activity to focus on, it is

unable to effectively perform either task. Because of this, in order for any intervention to

be effective the behavior must stop all together. A driver is unable to operate their vehicle

in a safe manner when their attention is divided between a cell phone and the road. The

brain simply cannot meet the demand of performing both tasks at once; meaning that

texting while driving is truly texting or driving (Lee, et. al, 2008).

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

The Accident Analysis and Prevention study used The Theory of Planned

Behavior to study the prevalence of texting while driving among teenage Australian

drivers. The research looked at how factors such as subjective norms, perceived

behavioral control, intentions, social influence, and attitude effect behavioral

determination. By employing The Theory of Planned Behavior the researchers learned

that each of the factors are significant in determining whether or not one will text and

drive. Through this study, it has been suggested that a “multi-faceted” approach be

applied to intervention plans designed to reduce this deadly behavior (Nemme and White,

2010).

The Theory of Planned Behavior is a model with a primary focus on one’s

perceived control over performing a behavior. In the context of texting while driving, this

model refers to one’s ability to engage in multiple behaviors at once. Within the TPB

model are the constructs of subjective norms, attitude, perceived behavioral control, and

their corresponding impact on behavioral intention. It has been shown that subjective

norms, behaviors or beliefs that are generally accepted by society, play a small role in

predicting whether or not one will have intentions to text and drive. Attitude, however,

has more of an impact. When people are of the attitude or belief that texting and driving

is dangerous, their proclivity to engage in the behavior is decreased. In terms of texting


while driving, one’s perception of their ability to perform this behavior influences

attitude. Because of this, perceived behavioral control is the most influential construct of

forecasting one’s likelihood to text and drive. If a driver feels as though they have control

over their actions they have little hesitation to engage in the activity even when they

know it is dangerous (Nemme and White, 2010). Thus, in an intervention scenario the

most important construct to tackle is the perceived behavioral control element. Roadway

users need to understand that, per the SEEV and Multiple-Resource Model, a driver truly

does not have the necessary skills to control their actions when performing these two high

demand activities. Once that component is addressed and understood by the population,

corresponding attitudes and social norms will shift and ultimately change behavior.

APPROACH TO PLANNING

In order for an intervention to be successful in changing a behavior it must target

and impact multiple levels of influence. The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value

model and the Multiple-Resource model were chosen because they were able to target the

behavior across the predisposing, reinforcing, and enabling factors that impact how likely

one is to text and drive (Lee, Et. Al., 2008). These theories focus their energy towards the

individual, or intrapersonal level, but through education can drive action at the

interpersonal, community, and policy levels.

Implementing the SEEV and Multiple-Resource theories correctly means first

understanding the scope of the problem at hand. Texting while driving is a national

public health threat in the United States and in order for an intervention to be effective it

must focus on precise factors the drive the behavior. Being too broad muddles the

message and reduces the effectiveness of the plan. Furthermore, because different

demographics respond to interventions in a dissimilar fashion, a specific population must

be targeted (Theory at a Glance, 2005).

INTERVENTION PLAN

The proposed intervention plan will target drivers categorized in the millennial

generation. The reason this group is being focused on is due to the fact that millennials

are the most likely age group to text while operating a motor vehicle (NHTSA, 2011).

Due to our young generation’s predilection towards mobile devices it would only be

natural to focus this intervention’s energy towards raising awareness through cell phones.


One of the most important aspects of this plan is education. Alarmingly, teens and

young drivers are of the perception that using a cellphone while driving does not

negatively impact their driving performance (NHTSA, 2011). Educating drivers on the

truth behind this behavior can change normative beliefs, values, and attitudes and, in turn,

change behavior. Running mobile ad campaigns on the dangers of texting while driving

targets the perception construct in The 4 P’s of Influence model. By highlighting how

texting while driving critically impairs one’s ability to text while driving, we can change

one’s perception on the behavior. As more individual perceptions are shifted through this

education the societal norms of the millennial generation will also shift, contributing to

reduced numbers of drivers that text while driving.

Education alone, however, is likely not enough to incite a behavioral change in

the millennial generation that has practically been raised on cell phones. Thus, equally

important to education in the mobile-centric intervention plan to reduce texting while

driving is reinforcing good behavior. Reinforcing a behavior increases the likelihood of

an individual continuing to behave in a certain way by giving the individual rewards and

positive feedback when they perform the behavior. Developing an app that gives drivers

incentive to refrain from texting on their cell phone when they are driving has the ability

to do just that. The app would operate on a structure that gives drivers prizes such as gift

cards, coupons, and other incentives when they do not text and drive. The more time that

the app detects an individual is not being distracted by their cellphone while driving, the

more points they accrue. If an individual does decide to text and drive, the application

will deduct points. These points can be redeemed for a myriad of prizes, which in turn

gives drivers tangible incentive to refrain from the behavior. Ultimately, using the mobile

phone itself as the medium through which we reduce texting while driving has great

potential to incite behavioral change.

CONCLUSION

In today’s hectic society drivers are increasingly pressured to be in constant

contact with the people and world around them. Long distance messages no longer have

to be mailed and spend days in purgatory to be received. One can send a text, and within

a matter of seconds expect a reply back from the recipient. It is without question then that

the cell phone has immeasurably improved the way in which people communicate and


connect with one another on a global scale. Likewise, cars have become larger, quicker,

and significantly more isolated from the roads on which they are driven. Factors these

two elements together and the issue of texting and driving becomes very clear. There

must be a change in the way drivers behave on the roadway. Education, norms, policy,

and law enforcement all must be addressed in a multi-faceted approach in order to

stimulate behavioral change (NHTSA, 2011). Until autonomous vehicles are established

on our roads, drivers need to be looking out of their windshields and not down at their

cell phones. Focused intervention strategies are needed to eradicate texting and driving

and ultimately make our morning commute a little less deadly.


RESOURCES

1. Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2010, September 1). The choice to text and drive in

younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1),

134-142. Retrieved February 17, 2014

2. Arnold, L., Hamilton, B., & Tefft, B. (2013, November). Distracted Driving and Perception of

Hands Free-Technologies. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2-18. Retrieved February

25, 2014

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2013%20TSCI%20Cognitive%20Distra

ction.pdf

3. Chaudary, N., Cosgrove, L., & Tison, J. (2011, December). National phone survey on

distracted driving attitudes and behaviors. NHTSA, 55-67. Retrieved February 21, 2014

4. Depression (2014). In American Psychological Association. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from

http://www.apa.org/topics/depress/

5. Distracted Driving (2013). In AAA Foundation. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from

https://www.aaafoundation.org/distracted-driving

6. Distracted Driving (2013). In The Driving Safety Club. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from

http://thedrivingsafetyclub.com/the-driving-safety-club-distracted-driving.htm

7. Ginsburg, K.R., Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., Garcia-Espana, F., Kinsman, S., Quistberg,

D. A., Ross, J. G., et al. (2008). National young-driver survey: Teen perspective and

experience with factors that affect driving safety. Pediatrics, 121(5), 1291-1403.

Retrieved March 3, 2014

8. Grellhesl, M., & Punyanunt-Carter, N.M. (2012). Using the uses and gratification theory to

understand gratifications sought through text messaging practices of male and female


undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2175-2181. Retrieved

March 3, 2014

9. Issar, N., Kadakia, R., Tsahkis, J., Yoneda, Z., Sethi, M., Mir, H., & Archer, K. (2013,

February 15). The link between texting and motor vehicle collision frequency in the

orthopaedic trauma population. Pub Med, 5(2), 95-100. Retrieved February 21, 2014

10. Jabali, S. M., Hussainat, M. M., Al-salem, R. K., & Zraikat, H. M. (2013). The Social,

Psychological and Economic Impact of Car Accidents on the Victims' Families. Journal

of Education and Practice, 4(2), 143-150. Retrieved January 27, 2014

11. Lane, K. (2010, January 12). NCS Estimates that At Least 1.6 Million Crashes Each Year

Involve Drivers Using Cell Phones and Texting. In National Safety Council. Retrieved

January 27, 2014, from

http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphone

sandtexting.aspx

12. Learn the Facts About Texting While Driving (2014). In EndDD.org. Retrieved March 21,

2014, from http://enddd.org/the-facts-about-distracted-driving/

13. Lee, V., Champagne, C., & Francescutti, L. (2013, July). Fatal distraction: cell phone use

while driving. Can Fam Physician, 59(7), 723-725. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23851528

14. Liao, C.-H., & Wan, Y.-B. (2009). Personality trait, social interaction and mobile phone

usage dependence. 5th Communication Policy Research South Conference, 603-630.

Retrieved March 3, 2014, from

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1724286


15. Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2010, June 18). In Adults and Cell Phone Distractions. Retrieved

January 24, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phone-

Distractions/Major-Findings/1-Texting-while-driving.aspx

16. Massachusetts Distracted Driving Study (2013, March). In Savits Research. Retrieved

February 7, 2014

17. Naylor, N. (2013, November 14). In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved January 23, 2014, from

http://www.distraction.gov/content/press-release/2013/11-14.html

18. Nemme, H. E., & White, K. M. (2010, July). Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences

on young people's texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention,

42(4). Retrieved March 30, 2014, from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457510000370

19. Regan, Michael A., John D. Lee, and Kristie L. Young. Driver Distraction. N.p.: CRC Press,

2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

http://www.crcnetbase.com.libproxy.clemson.edu/isbn/9781420007497

20. Solutions (2013). In Distracted Driving Foundation. Retrieved March 14, 2014

21. Stravinos, D. (2009). Individual Differences in Perception of Distracted Driving Ability in

Teenage Drivers. In Translational Research for Injury Prevention. Retrieved February 8,

2014

22. Tel, O. A. (2010, March 31). U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Proposes Rule to

Ban Texting and Driving for Truck and Bus Drivers. In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved

January 27, 2014, from http://www.distraction.gov/content/press-release/2010/03-31.html

23. Texting and Driving: It Can Wait (2014). In AT&T Drive Mode. Retrieved March 21, 2014,

from https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/txting_driving/att_drivemode_factsheet.pdf


24. Traffic Safety Facts (2012, March). In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from

http://www.distraction.gov/download/811611.pdf

25. Traffic Safety Facts (2011, March). NHTSA. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://www-

nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811737.pdf

26. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020. Web.

March. 2013.

http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx

27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health: National

Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practices. (2005)

Second eds. Print.

28. What is post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD? (2012). In National Institute of Mental

Health. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-

ptsd/index.shtml

Txt240ppr

Health & Medicine

Transcript of Txt240ppr