ERIC EJ750835: Active Prompting to Decrease Cell Phone Use and Increase Seat Belt Use while Driving

2006·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2006, 39, 341–349 NUMBER3 (FALL2006)
ACTIVE PROMPTING TO DECREASE CELL PHONE USE
AND INCREASE SEAT BELT USE WHILE DRIVING
MICHAEL CLAYTON AND BRIDGETT HELMS
JACKSONVILLESTATEUNIVERSITY
AND
CATHY SIMPSON
HEALTHSERVICESCENTER,INC.,BIRMINGHAM
Automobilecrashesaretheleadingcauseofdeathforthoseaged3to33,with43,005(118per
day) Americans killed in 2002 alone. Seat belt use reduces the risk of serious injury in an
accident, and refraining from using a cell phone while driving reduces the risk of an accident.
Cellphoneusewhiledrivingincreasesaccidentrates,andleadsto2,600U.S.fatalitieseachyear.
Anactivepromptingprocedurewasemployedtoincreaseseatbeltuseanddecreasecellphone
useamongdriversexitingauniversityparkinglot.Amultiplebaselinewithreversaldesignwas
usedtoevaluatethepresentationoftwosigns:‘‘PleaseHangUp,ICare’’and‘‘PleaseBuckleUp,
ICare.’’Theproportionofdriverswhocompliedwiththeseatbeltpromptwashighandinline
withpreviousresearch.Theproportionofdriverswhohunguptheircellphonesinresponseto
thepromptwasaboutequaltothatoftheseatbeltprompt.Aprocedurethatreducescellphone
use amongautomobile drivers is asignificant contribution tothe behavioral safetyliterature.
DESCRIPTORS: activeprompting, behavioral safety, cell phones, seat belts,flashfor life
_______________________________________________________________________________
In the U.S., vehicle crashes are the leading The use of seat belts can significantly reduce
causeofdeathforthoseaged3to33 years,with the risk of automobile injuries and fatalities.
43,005 (118 per day) Americans killed in 2002 Prompted by the injury-reduction and life-
(themostrecentyearforwhichdataareavailable; saving effects of seat belt use, legislators
National Highway Traffic Safety Administra- mandated the inclusion of seat belts in all
tion). Worldwide, vehicle accidents result in U.S. automobiles sold since 1968 (Stowell &
1.2 million deaths per year, behind only child- Bryant, 1978). The challenge for public health
hood infections and AIDS as a cause of death officials has been getting Americans to use the
among people aged 5 to 30 years (Krug, 2003). seat belts that are now available in virtually
The use of safety belts by drivers and front-seat every vehicle on the road (Geller, Casali, &
passengers reduces fatalities by 45% for those in Johnson, 1980). This problem is compounded
cars and by 60% for those in light trucks by selective recruitment, such that the riskiest
(Kahane, 2000). Simply being in a moving drivers are also those least likely to wear seat
automobile is a dangerous proposition, but belts (Evans, 1996; Van Houten & Malenfant,
there are many things that drivers do (or do 1988). Most automobile industry attempts to
not do) that increase the risk of injury or death. prompt seat belt use have relied on negative
reinforcement. For example, lights, bells, and
We thank Frances Archuleta, Ryan Reed, Rene Burt, buzzers sound until the seat belt is fastened.
Barry Davenport, Jennifer Simpson, and Jana Vallejo for Research has shown that many drivers simply
their assistance with data collection, and Trudie Guffey
disable the systems (Geller et al., 1980), but
andthelate Cathi Downing for inspiration.
Address correspondence to Michael Clayton, who is these negative reinforcement approaches have
now at Youngstown State University, One University remained in use by the automobile industry.
Plaza, Youngstown, Ohio 44555 (e-mail: mcclayton@
Punitive measures, such as fines, are in effect in
ysu.edu).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.153-04 every state.
341
342 MICHAEL CLAYTON et al.
Geller et al. (1980) first identified seat belt stopped at traffic lights. The sign read ‘‘Please
use as an important dependent variable in Buckle Up—I Care’’ and was flipped over to
appliedbehavioranalysis.Theyfoundthat62% present ‘‘Thank You’’ when drivers complied.
of available seat belt interlocks or unlimited Thyer, Geller, Williams, and Purcell (1987)
buzzer systems had been disabled, but that all used the same prompt, but included students
drivers with working systems wore seat belts. standing outside a university parking lot to
Geller et al. recommended avoiding the pitfalls prompt drivers. Active prompts also have been
of punishment and negative reinforcement by used to increase compliance with stop signs
instead focusing on positively reinforcing seat (Austin, Hackett, Gravina, & Lebbon, 2006;
belt use. Van Houten & Retting, 2001).
Consistent with this suggestion, seat belt use Subsequent research removed the human
has been addressed with informational cam- component and simply placed stationary signs
paigns that manipulate antecedent variables by outside parking lots (Berry, Geller, Calef, &
providing performance feedback and often Calef, 1992) or provided a stationary textual
include some type of active enforcement prompt (‘‘Buckle Up, Avoid Hospitals’’) in
(Hagenzieker, 1991; Williams, Wells, McCartt, a retirement community (Cox, Cox, & Cox,
& Preusser, 2000). For example, Wells, Mal- 2000).Othershaveremovedthetextualprompt
enfant, Williams, and Van Houten (2000) altogether and provided a vocal prompt de-
posted feedback signs at mall and shopping livered bygrocery clerks(‘‘Have a niceday, and
center exits displaying rates pf seat belt use by remembertowearyoursafetybeltforasaferide
patrons,distributedpostersandflyersproviding home’’)toincreaseseatbeltuse(Austin,Alvero,
information about the benefits of the ‘‘click it & Olson, 1998; Engerman, Austin, & Bailey,
or ticket’’ program, and urged patrons to use 1997).
theirseatbelts.Thisprocedureresultedina10% Cell phone use is a comparatively recent
increase in seat belt use among drivers and phenomenonthatalsoaffectsautomobilesafety.
passengers (see also Malenfant, Wells, Van At present, about 50% of Americans use a cell
Houten, & Williams, 1996; Pasto` & Baker, phone, and about 85% of those use one while
2001). Several researchers also have introduced driving(InsuranceInformationInstitute,2004).
‘‘promise’’ cards in which drivers agree to wear In addition to taking their eyes of the road
belts in the future (Clark et al., 1999; Geller & while dialing, drivers can become so engrossed
Lehman, 1991; Ludwig & Geller, 1991). Such in conversation that their ability to concentrate
feedbackprocedureshaveincreasedseatbeltuse on driving is severely impaired. Currently,
by 2% to 20%. about 6% of automobile accidents are caused
Amoreeffectiveprocedureforincreasingseat by cell phone use (Lissy, Cohen, Park, &
belt use has focused on both active and passive Graham, 2000).
promptingofdrivers’behavior(Geller,Bruff,& Automobile safety data on cell phone use is
Nimmer, 1985). Passive prompts are posted on limited but suggests an overlooked problem. A
an inanimate object and remain there for the driver’s useof a cell phone upto 10 min before
duration, whereas active prompts include hu- a crash is associated with a fourfold increased
man facilitation of the prompt. In general, likelihood of crashing, and risk is raised
prompting procedures typically suggest that the irrespective of whether a hands-free device is
driver ‘‘buckle up’’ and have increased seat belt used (McEvoy et al., 2005). Impairment has
usefrom12%to35%.Gelleretal.usedafront- been found to be at about the same level as
seat passenger presenting a textual prompt to someonedrivingwitha0.08bloodalcohollevel
occupants of adjacent vehicles while both were (Redelmeier&Tibshirani,1997).Comparedto
ACTIVE PROMPTING 343
drivers who do not use cell phones, drivers the parking lot per hour during data-collection
talkingoncellphonesmisstwiceasmanytraffic sessions over the course of the study. One
signals, are more likely to swerve into the next student delivered the treatments, and two
lane (46%), tailgate (23%), have close calls students collected independent observations of
(18%),andrunredlights(10%)(Wilson,Fang, thetargetbehaviorsduringallsessions.Students
& Wiggins, 2003). The use of a hands-free stood on the passenger side (as indicated in
phone results in an equal level of distraction, Figure 1 by the figure holding a clipboard).
but the radio, passenger conversation, and During the second season of the study, two
books on tape do not interfere with driving to additional observers were stationed about one
the same extent (Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, block away (secondary setting) from the
2003; Strayer & Johnston, 2001). primary setting, so that they could observe the
Punitiveconsequenceshavebeenputinplace subsequent behaviors of left-turners from the
in many countries. Drivers caught using a cell primary location.
phone in England, Wales, or Scotland are fined
£30, and drivers in New York, New Jersey, and Materials
Washington D.C. are being fined as well The materials used in this study included
(although hands-free phones remain legal). In a data-collection sheet (available from the first
2005, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, and author), two walkie-talkies, and a two-sided
Tennessee banned cell phone use by young poster that served as both a prompt and
drivers (Copeland, 2005). Resistance from the a potential conditioned reinforcer. The poster
cell phone industry and the difficulty of was white posterboard (51 cm by 61 cm) with
banning all driver distractions (eating, applying black lettering about 7.6 cm in height. During
make-up, reading, etc.) make further punitive the first intervention (prompting sign for cell
measures less desirable. phone use), one side of the poster read ‘‘Please
The current study attempted to increase seat Hang Up—I Care’’ and the other side read
belt use and decrease cell phone use while ‘‘Thank You.’’ During the second intervention
driving. The method was modeled after Thyer, (prompting sign for seat belt use), the poster
Geller, Williams,and Purcell’s (1987)interven- read ‘‘Please Buckle Up—I Care’’ and ‘‘Thank
tion to increase seat belt use by drivers exiting You.’’
a university parking lot. Our literature review
Procedure
found no attempts to alter cell phone use in
The two treatments were delivered using
automobiles, but it seemed feasible to decrease
a multiple baseline across behaviors (with
cell phone use while driving by using a pro-
reversal) design. The entire study took place
cedure that has increased seat belt use in
over 2 years, with the interventions occurring
previous studies.
each spring and lasting for 6 to 7 weeks.
Observer pairs in the primary setting re-
METHOD
corded seat belt and cell phone use of drivers
Setting and Participants exiting the parking lot. If the driver had a cell
The current study was conducted at a four- phoneineitherhand,thatqualifiedasengaging
way intersection at a medium-sized state in the target behavior. Observers also recorded
university located in the southeastern United whether the driver buckled up or hung up in
States. The focus of the intervention was on response to the prompt (defined as completing
a two-lane road exiting a large parking lot used the behavior any time between when the driver
by faculty, staff, and students (Figure 1). approached the observers and passed through
Approximately 110 vehicles, on average, exited the intersection). The sessions were conducted
344 MICHAEL CLAYTON et al.
Figure1. Theintersection where the studywasconducted.
every weekday from 11:00 a.m. until 12:00 During the second season of the study,
p.m. Interobserver agreement was calculated by observers in a secondary location observed
dividing the number of agreements by the specific vehicles as instructed by the observers
number of agreements plus disagreements and in the first setting. Their task was to observe
multiplying by 100%. Interobserver agreement whether the driver in a targeted vehicle was
was assessed on 100% of sessions and was wearing a seat belt or using a cell phone.
consistently over 95%. Communication was accomplished using a pair
Duringtheinterventions,astudentdisplayed of walkie-talkies. These observers sat on a wall
thepostertodriversexitingtheparkinglot.The (1.3 mhigh)3 mfromtheroadwayfacingeach
prompt was held at chest height (120 cm to other to give the appearance of engaging in
155 cm above the ground) for the duration of conversation. Interobserver agreement also was
the driver’s presence. The distance between the assessed on 100% of these sessions and was
prompting sign and the automobile ranged consistently over 95%.
from 1 to 3 m, depending on which lane the When a driver was observed buckling up or
vehicle was in. All drivers were prompted with hanging up in response to the prompt in the
the ‘‘Please …’’ side, and drivers who complied first setting, the observers waited until the car
were then shown the ‘‘Thank You’’ side of the turned left and then communicated the color
poster for approximately 10 s. and type of vehicle to the observers in the
ACTIVE PROMPTING 345
Figure 2. Proportion ofdrivers using cell phones andhanging up, anddrivers wearingseat beltsandbuckling up
during the study. The broken phase line at the midpoint indicates when the second season began, about 1 year later.
Opencircles:proportionofdriversusingacellphoneuponapproachingtheobservers(top)andproportionofdrivers
wearingaseatbelt(bottom).Closedcircles:proportionofdrivershangingupuponapproachingtheobservers(top)and
proportion who fastened their seat belts (bottom). Open circles represent a change in behavior over time, and closed
circlesrepresent an immediate response tothe displayedprompt.
second setting. This occurred only during the use averaged 6%. During prompting for cell
second season of the study and only for drivers phone use, use remained about the same, but
turning left. Left-turners were chosen because the proportion of drivers hanging up their cell
most (M 5 64%) vehicles turned left, and phones whenpromptedtodosoincreased. Seat
limits on student resources did not allow belt use during this phase rose as well and
observers in all three possible directions. averaged 56%. The presence of the prompter
and observers implied monitoring, and because
nonuse of a seat belt is an unlawful behavior,
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
drivers may have buckled up to avoid a pre-
The proportion of drivers who engaged in sumedaversiveconsequence.Duringprompting
prompted behaviors is shown in Figure 2. The for seat belt use, cell phone use averaged about
proportionofdriversobservedhangingupacell 7%, and hang-ups dropped to zero. Seat belt
phone or buckling their seat belt is separate useaveraged78%duringthisphase.Twoweeks
from those drivers observed using a cell phone after the last data point of prompting for seat
or wearing a seat belt. belt use, a 1-week reversal was conducted. Seat
During the first baseline, the percentage of belt use dropped to an average of 64%, and cell
seatbeltuseaveragedabout44%andcellphone phone use remained about the same.
346 MICHAEL CLAYTON et al.
Figure3. Proportionofdriversusingacellphoneorwearingaseatbeltbothbeforeandaftertheinterventions.The
brokenphase line atthe midpoint indicates whenthe secondseasonbegan, about 1year later.
Theresultsforthesecondseasonofthestudy hang up when they approached the prompt.
closely resembled those of the first season, These rates approximate what previous re-
except that the proportion of cell phone users searchers have found when using similar
who hung up after being prompted to do so interventions for other driving behaviors. Fur-
increased over the first season’s proportion. ther,whencomparingbaselinetopromptingfor
Also, the observers in the second setting seat belts during the first season, there was
collected data on the proportion of drivers a 34% increase in seat belt use. During the
usingcellphonesandseatbeltsafterhangingup second season compliance was 25%.
or buckling up in the first setting. The Figure 3 shows the proportion of drivers
percentage of drivers using cell phones one using seatbelts andcellphones,bothbeforethe
block after hanging up averaged 36%, whereas intervention began and after it concluded,
the percentage of drivers who buckled their seat during both seasons of the study. During
belts following the prompt and then unbuckled Season 1, cell phone use declined 9% from its
one block away was zero. initialrate,andduringSeason2itdeclined3%.
Thedata shownin Figure 2indicatethatcell Seat belt use increased 46% in the first season
phone use was relatively low. The inclusion of and 13% in the second season.
data on drivers who hung up in response to the With respect to seat belt use, the effect of
prompt shows an average rate of compliance of prompting seemed to carry over into Season 2.
28%duringthefirstseasonand33%duringthe Seat belt use during baseline was over 40% and
second season. At no other time did drivers increased to over 60% at the end of Season 1.
ACTIVE PROMPTING 347
Baseline percentages during Season 2 were a result of more drivers acquiring cell phones,
higher, suggesting possible carryover from although there is no way to substantiate this
Season 1. Although the baseline proportion of possibility.
seat belt use was higher in Season 2, the An additional innovation, the use of ob-
intervention resulted in about the same effect servers in the second postprompt setting,
as Season 1. Some drivers, for whatever occurred during Season 2. This procedure
reason, may be more resistant to using seat allowed analysis of the longer term effects of
belts. The ceiling effect seen in Figure 3 the intervention. Although initial compliance
suggests that active prompting did not reach rates with the ‘‘hang up’’ prompts were
these drivers. promising, it seemed likely that drivers might
have put the other party on hold and then
GENERAL DISCUSSION
resumedtheirconversationmomentarily.Direct
Overall, the findings of the present study observation indicated that about a third of
support the use of an active prompting in- drivers did so one block later. Conversely, no
tervention to increase drivers’ seat belt use and drivers were observed to remove their seat belts
decrease cell phone use. Seat belt use increased after buckling up.
markedly from baseline, with about a third of There are several issues pertaining to the
unbuckled drivers buckling up when prompted current study that should be addressed. First,
across the 2 years of the study. Similar success the rate of cell phone use during the study was
was shown for a condition that prompted relatively low (6% initially). Currently, it is
drivers to hang up cell phones. Postprompting estimatedthatabout10%ofdriversontheroad
observationssuggestedthatbehaviorchangewas at any one time are using some type of phone
highly durable for seat belt use, with no drivers (Glassbrenner, 2005). Future work in more
unbuckling a block away from the initial urban environments is needed to further
prompting site. Conversely, about a third of evaluate the procedure while minimizing this
drivers had reengaged in cell phone use within floor effect.
a block of the initial prompt and hang-up Asecondissuerelatestothenatureofthetwo
compliance, suggesting differential effectiveness behaviors (cell phone and seat belt use). It is
of the intervention across behaviors. legaltotalkonacellphonewhiledrivinginthe
The current study used two procedural stateinwhichthestudywasconducted,butitis
innovations. First, data were collected on not legal to drive without a seat belt. It also is
compliance with the textual prompts. This reasonable to assume that drivers have had
allowed for differentiation between behaviors considerably more practice buckling up and
that were immediate responses to the prompt have received more education with respect to
andacquisitionofsafebehaviorsovertime.The the safety benefits of seat belts.
percentage of drivers buckling up or hanging Finally, the present procedure may increase
up shows responding to the prompts, whereas the risk to drivers in another way. When
the percentage of drivers engaging in the prompted to buckle up or hang up, drivers
target behaviors shows acquisition. Behavior frequentlybegantofumblearoundfortheirseat
change was more obvious in the case of seat belts or attempted to hang up their cell phones.
belts, for which both immediate responses and These are risky behaviors that could lead to
acquisition over time seemed to occur. Cell accidents. Fortunately, driving speed when
phone use, on the other hand, appeared to be leaving a parking lot and negotiating a four-
sensitive to the prompts, but the percentage of way intersection tends to be relatively slow, but
users did not decline. This may have been the risk is real.
348 MICHAEL CLAYTON et al.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the social Copeland, L. (2005, June 2). States to drivers: Hang up,
validity of these interventions was high. Many look out. USA Today, Retrieved June 2, 2005, from
http://usatoday.com
driversgavea‘‘thumbsup’’orapolitewaveand
Cox,B.S.,Cox,A.B.,&Cox,D.J.(2000).Motivating
smile, usually in response to the cell phone signagepromptssafetybeltuseamongdriversexiting
prompt. There also were many ‘‘seat belt senior communities. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 33,635–638.
salutes’’ (using a hand to lift the belt from the
Engerman, J. A., Austin, J., & Bailey, J. S. (1997).
body and gesture to the observers that they are
Prompting patron safety belt use at a supermarket.
wearingtheir seatbelts) performedbydrivers as JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 30,577–579.
they passed the prompter. Over the course of Evans, L. (1996). Safety-belt effectiveness: The influence
of crash severity and selective recruitment. Accident
the study approximately 6,500 vehicles were
Analysis& Prevention,28,423–433.
prompted,withonlyonerudegestureobserved. Geller, E. S., Bruff, C. D., & Nimmer, J. G. (1985).
Several aspects of the current intervention ‘‘Flash for life’’: Community-based prompting for
safety belt promotion. Journal of Applied Behavior
make it attractive for future safety programs.
Analysis, 18,309–314.
Theprocedureiseffective,easytocarryout,and
Geller,E.S.,Casali,J.G.,&Johnson,R.P.(1980).Seat
very low cost when volunteers are available. belt usage: A potential target for applied behavior
Given the statistics on automobile accidents, analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,
669–675.
the procedure is worth far more than it costs
Geller, E. S., & Lehman, G. R. (1991). The buckle-up
to implement. Students enjoyed being outside promise card: A versatile intervention for large-scale
and interacting with drivers, and the drivers behaviorchange.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,
24, 91–94.
did not seem to mind the intrusion. In future
Glassbrenner, D. (2005). Driver cell phone use in 2005—
applications, it would be easy and rewarding
Overall results, Research Note DOT HS 809 967.
for various collegiate groups (teams, sororities, Retrieved January 11, 2006, from http://www.nhtsa.
clubs) to perform similar active prompting dot.gov
Hagenzieker, M. P. (1991). Enforcement or incentives?
interventions around campus focusing on
Promotingsafetybeltuseamongmilitarypersonnelin
seat belts, cell phones, stop signs, turn signals, theNetherlands.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,
and so on. The combined low cost, easy 24, 23–30.
Insurance Information Institute. (2004, March). Cell
presentation, and high effectiveness and
phones and driving, Retrieved March 13, 2004, from
acceptability of the procedure suggest that it
http://www.iii.org
shouldbecarriedoutmoreoftenandcouldsave Kahane, C. J. (2000). Fatality reduction by safety belts
lives. for front-seat occupants of cars and light trucks:
Updated and expanded estimates based on 1986–
1999 FARS data. (NHTSA Report No.DOT HS
REFERENCES 809199)
Krug, E. (2003). Road traffic injuries. World Health
Austin,J.,Alvero,A.M.,&Olson,R.(1998).Prompting Organization, Retrieved July 5, 2006, from http://
patron safety belt use at a restaurant. Journal of www.who.int/world-health-day/2004/en/traffic_facts_
AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31,655–657. en.pdf
Austin,J.,Hackett,S.,Gravina,N.,&Lebbon,A.(2006). Lissy, K., Cohen, J., Park, M., & Graham, J. D. (2000).
The effects of prompting and feedback on drivers’ Cellular phones and driving: Weighing the risks
stopping at stop signs. Journal of Applied Behavior and benefits. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, 8(6),
Analysis,39,117–121. 1–6.
Berry, T. D., Geller, E. S., Calef, R. S., & Calef, R. A. Ludwig, T. D., & Geller, E. S. (1991). Improving the
(1992). Moderating effects of social assistance on driving practices of pizza deliverers: Response
verbal interventions to promote safety belt use: An generalization and moderating effects of driving
analysis ofweak plys. Environment and Behavior,24, history. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24,
653–669. 31–44.
Clark,M.J.,Schmitz,S.,Conrad,A.,Estes,C.,Healy,M. Malenfant,L.,Wells,J.K.,VanHouten,R.,&Williams,
M., & Hiltibidal, J. (1999). The effects of an A. F. (1996). The use of feedback signs to increase
intervention campaign to enhance seat belt use on observeddaytimeseatbeltuseintwocitiesinNorth
campus. Journal of American College Health, 47(6), Carolina. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(6),
277–281. 771–777.
ACTIVE PROMPTING 349
McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., McCartt, A. T., Thyer, B. A., Geller, E. S., Williams, M., & Purcell, E.
Woodward,M.,Haworth,C.,&Palamara, P.,etal. (1987). Community-based ‘‘flashing’’ to increase
(2005, July 12). Role of mobile phones in motor safety belt use. Journal of Experimental Education,
vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A 55,155–159.
case-crossover study. British Medical Journal, Van Houten, R., & Malenfant, L. (1988). The effects
doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55 of nighttime seat belt enforcement on seat belt
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (n.d.). use by tavern patrons: A preliminary analysis.
Retrieved July 11, 2005, from http://nhtsa.gov/ Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 21,271–276.
people/crash/LCOD/index.htm Van Houten, R., & Retting, R. A. (2001). Increasing
Pasto`, L., & Baker, A. G. (2001). Evaluation of a brief motorist compliance and caution at stop signs.
intervention for increasing seat belt use on a college Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 34, 185–193.
campus.Behavior Modification,25(3),471–486. Wells, J. K., Malenfant, L., Williams, A. F., & Van
Redelmeier,D.A.,&Tibshirani,R.J.(1997).Association Houten,R.(2000).Useofacommunityprogramto
between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle increase seatbeltuse amongshoppingcenter patrons
collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), in Charlotte, North Carolina. Journal of Safety
453–458. Research,31(2),93–99.
Stowell,C.,&Bryant,J.(1978).Safetybeltusage:Surveyof Williams,A.F.,Wells,J.K.,McCartt,A.T.,&Preusser,
the traffic population. Technical Report DOT H56- D. F. (2000). ‘‘Buckle Up NOW!’’ An enforcement
01340.Washington, DC:Kirschner Associates, Inc. program to achieve high belt use. Journal of Safety
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Research,31(4),195–201.
Cellphone-inducedfailuresofvisualattentionduring Wilson, J., Fang, M., & Wiggins, S. (2003). Collision
simulated driving. JournalofExperimental Psychology: andviolationinvolvementofdriverswhousecellular
Applied, 9(1),23–32. telephones. Traffic InjuryPrevention,4(1), 45–52.
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to
distraction:Dual-taskstudiesofsimulateddrivingand Received November 4,2004
conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Final acceptanceFebruary 8,2006
Science, 12(6),462–466. Action Editor,Ron VanHouten