Challenging Dogma - Fall 2009

Sunday, December 13, 2009

A Fine Line: The Mobile Office-Ryan Macabasco

I. Introduction
Recently, technology within a motor vehicle has been cast into the spotlight, thanks to a British public service announcement (PSA), detailing the violence and repercussions from text messaging while driving. Although, this was merely an informative PSA, the real life consequences are evident. In September of 2006, a MetroLink commuter rail crashed just outside of Los Angeles, California, the suspected cause was the distraction of text messaging by the engineer in charge of the commuter rail (1). This distraction led to the engineer, Robert Sanchez, missing a light causing his train to collide with that of a freight train, killing 26 people and injuring 220.
In May 2009, the chief of the Boston area’s transit authority said that he would prohibit train and trolley operators from carrying cell phones and other personal electronic devices while working. The announcement of the policy change came a day after the authorities said that a 24-year-old trolley operator ran a red light while he was text messaging and crashed into another trolley, injuring 49 people (2). Under this new policy, Boston transit employees are prohibited form talking or texting on cell phones while working, a policy in effect in many other places around the nation. A new policy in order would keep train conductors and bus drivers from carrying cell phones on their person, a policy that would be among the strictest in the nation, including California.
The last example is about 22 year old British woman, Phillipa Curtis, who crashed her car into the parked car of Victoria McBryde, who was waiting for assistance for a flat tire. This crash could have been written off as just another tragic accident, but in the hour before the crash it was noted that Phillipa Curtis exchanged nearly two dozen phone messages with at least five friends (3). Britain’s new guidelines state that using a hand-held phone when causing a death will always make the offense more serious in terms of punishment and will lead to prison time. However, texting is given special treatment. Curtis was sentenced to 21 months in a high security women’s prison. These new guidelines regard “reading or composing text messages over a period of time as a gross avoidable distraction”. Its effect, British judges have ruled, may go beyond the moment of composing a message. Such behavior is categorized the same as driving under the influence or racing (3).
The reality is that cell phone use and technology in a motor vehicle is evident and continuing to grow. The problem is that although we are making advances towards addressing this public health problem, we are doing so at a pace that is not comparable to that of the industry. In December 2008, roughly 271,000,000 Americans, or roughly 88% of the population owned a cell phone. The federal government estimated in 2007 that 11 percent of drivers were talking on their phones at any given time, and that studies have shown that a driver talking on their cell phone is four times likelier to crash (4). Just from basic calculations, there are 27 million Americans on the road driving that are on their cell phones, focusing on Global Positioning Systems (GPS), checking email, or any other number of functions that are readily available to them. The rapid and continuing growth in driver cell phone use make this a highway safety concern (8). The vehicle is turning into a mobile office, where multi-taskers are seizing the opportunity to increase efficiency. In the process, lives are being put in danger, and fatalities are occurring that could otherwise be prevented.

II. A Critique of the Current Public Health Approaches
The need to aggressively intervene this problem is now. Cell phone companies have currently acknowledged the problem and are developing campaigns, but do these companies have the answer? Laws are being enacted to combat this preventative health problem, but are these laws really being enforced? Scare tactics, such as the Gwent Police PSA, are being used to try and frighten teenagers, but is that really the way to send the right message? These criticisms will be discussed as well as solutions to the current public health problem that threatens the lives of millions around the world. The goal is to devise a preventative intervention that empowers and plays to the strengths of the youth, with whom the problem lies.

A. The Teenage Mind
Governments seem to think that the best way to enforce and make a difference in teenagers is to scare them. For example, in Gwent, a small county in Wales, the police have produced a film that was meant to be shown in schools, but somehow made its way on to the internet and has received over four million views on YouTube. The Police PSA visualizes with gory imagery a young driver texting as she is driving the countryside. In this video, we see a teenager’s head slamming into the window, the blank stare of a baby in a back seat, and a pregnant woman hunched over after hitting the dashboard. “Young people were telling us, ‘It needs to be more shocking, it needs to be more violent, it needs to be more truthful,’” said Peter Watkins, the film’s director (7).
Teenagers and young adults (ages 16-25) are constantly targeted because for their use of technology in vehicles, and rightfully so. Motor vehicle crashes continue to be the leading cause of death for young people. Even though the mortality rate among young drivers has been decreasing, young drivers aged 16-24 continue to be at higher risk of being in a motor vehicle crash and for fatal outcomes than middle aged drivers (5). This is because this age group actively engages in riskier behavior. Many studies have used the theory of planned behavior to design interventions for this age group. They have attempted to understand the mind of a teenager by trying to predict their intentions. The theory of planned behavior maintains that intentions are the most proximal determinants of behavior. Intentions are influenced by attitudes (positive and negative), subjective norms (social aspects/ pressures), and self-efficacy (one’s ability to perform a behavior). Given the practical, social, and psychological benefits of using a mobile phone, it is not surprising that mobile phone users, in general, perceive that the benefits outweigh the risks. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that positive attitudes toward mobile phone use would influence the decision to use a mobile phone (6). The theory of planned behavior allows for external factors to be taken into consideration; in the case of cell phone use or other electronics, there are two major risks: the increased risk of crashing and the risk of getting a ticket or apprehended (due to the illegality of cell phone use while driving in some states). So, although most teenagers, let alone drivers, understand the risks of using cell phones, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Anne T. McCartt, VP for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway safety, said, “ When you look at something like cell phone use or texting, most people already know these behaviors are not safe, but they do them anyway. But the challenge in highway safety is that we do unsafe things day after day and don’t end up in a crash, and so I think, over time, people go back to their everyday behaviors.” This is a great example of people’s optimistic bias, where they are aware or understand a risk, but believe that it will never happen to them. Teenagers and humans will continue to underestimate the risk knowing that the possibility of dying from cell phone use will not happen to them.
The Gwent Police were on the right track by getting by asking teenagers about an issue that they thought was important, but unfortunately humans are irrational and make irrational decisions about behavior every day. On this basis, the theory of planned behavior fails in its assessment to understand and predict the intentions of teenagers. There are too many peripheral factors in the equation to accurately predict their intentions.

B. Dangers of Distracted Driving and the Laws that follow
Beade and Kass found that cell phone use during a simulated driving task significantly impaired driver performance, (measured in terms of four categories of behavior: traffic violations, driving maintenance, attention lapses, and response time), because drivers are prone to distraction (taking their eyes off the road while dialing, texting, or are engrossed in conversation) (8). This distraction greatly increases the risk of getting into an accident, or even worse killing someone. Likewise, Redelmeier and Tibshirani concluded that when a driver used a cell phone while driving, the risk of collision was between 3 and 6.5 times higher than when the phone was not used, and that this increased risk was similar to that of driving with a blood-alcohol level above the legal limit (8).
A disconnect between perception and reality worsens the problem. New studies have shown that drivers overestimate their own ability to safely multitask (i.e. driving and texting), even as they worry about the dangers of others doing it. Device makers and auto companies acknowledge the risks of multitasking behind the wheel, but they aggressively develop and market gadgets that cause distraction (10)
Laws are becoming more commonplace to fight against these distractions, but still the numbers are not overwhelming. Five states and the District of Columbia require drivers who talk on cell phones to use hands-free devices, but research shows that using headsets can be as dangerous as holding a phone because conversation distracts the driver from focusing on the road (10, 12, 13, 15). Fourteen states have passed measures to ban texting while driving (10). They have been advocates for the Optimal Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) program, which includes five optimal provisions: a 6 month holding period, 30-50 hours of supervised driving, nighttime driving restrictions, passenger restrictions, and cell use restriction (16), to this day only one state (Delaware) has a program encompassing all of these provisions. Currently, only 10 states have cell phone restrictions as part of the program (CA,CT,DE,ME,MN,NJ,NC,OR,TX,VA)(16). Laws and policies are being put in place to help with this growing public health epidemic, but vast majorities of the people do not see this as a problem. Policy makers underestimate the idea of ownership, not in the monetary sense, but more in the idea that people value the ability to talk on their phone, the freedom to check their email, and update their Facebook status. People have recognized that cell phones and technology allow them certain freedoms for which cannot be bought. They values these freedoms a disproportionate level; and, until we figure out a way to tackle this, this will continue to be a fast, growing public health problem.

C. Cell Phone Companies Frame Intervention Campaigns
Cell phone companies point out that for a decade they have run numerous public service ads, like AT&T’s 2001 “Be Sensible” campaign, telling customers not to talk while driving through bad weather or heavy traffic. On its web site, Verizon Wireless cites government recommendations that the safest course is to stay off the phone while driving (4). These companies continue to send mixed messages. AT&T provides service for the popular Apple iphone, which gives users access to over 100,000 different apps and games. These apps will ultimately lead to more distractions and inevitably more fatalities on the road. Just think, iphones and cell phones in general are becoming more powerful everyday, but also more distracting. Some cell phones have the capability of dialing calls, playing music, text messaging, taking photos, checking email, playing games, getting on the web, reading books, and the list goes; and to think that a single person can do all these activities in the comfort of their vehicle, while also trying to pay attention to the road.
We must look at phone companies, the way we look at tobacco companies. And frankly, we must be extreme and look at cell phones the way we look at cigarettes. Phone companies will always have their best interests in mind and only care about the potential profits that they can incur. The truth is that phones companies have known about this problem since the car phones evolution in the early 1960’s. Engineers then, warned about the potential risks that we are encountering now. I believe that in light of all of the recent events that have transpired due to cell phones and other devices, that these companies are changing their stance. But, I also do know that, we, meaning everyone across the globe, have become dependent on our cell phones. We need our cell phone the way an addict needs their substance or the way a smoker needs a cigarette. We personalize, decorate, and even give certain people ringtones. For some, a cell phone represents who they are. It gives us that sense of “ownership” and because of that we must intervene.

III. Reshaping the Cell Phone Image
The problem does not lie in the cell phone, in technological advancement, or even its functionality. The problem is not even how it is being used, but when it is being used. We are not saying that it is bad to use cell phones, MP3 players, or GPS devices, in fact these devices are great and when used in the right context or environment, and can be extremely helpful. We are saying just don’t use them when driving a car, boat, train, or any other motor vehicle. In order to effectively devise an intervention to this problem we must find where the problem is most prevalent. That population is teenagers and young adults. The issue of cell phones and text messaging must be “framed” in the right way, meaning the issue should be made clear and in way that teenagers can grasp.
Successful solutions to the Cell phone and other devices within motor vehicles, must be dealt with from a societal or group perspective, as opposed to that of an individual behavioral model, as was the case in previous examples. These alternative solutions will be more effective if we look through the lens of the teenager. The proposed solutions involve similar campaigns to those advocating teenage anti-smoking, pushing for better federal policy, and aspects of social marketing.

A. A Brief Description of the Intervention
For this intervention to be successful, the approach must come from that of the mind of an advertiser. Adequate research must be done. The intervention must aim to understand the mind and ideas behind young adults and teenagers, and the decisions that they make. Also, to be successful the intervention must figure out a way to get rid of the stigma that the government is trying to control them. We must re-frame the issue in a way that teenagers and young adults understand. This must be in way that does not take away their liberties, or make them feel as though their freedoms are being compromised. The intervention needs to brand itself, as group that is cool and exclusive, where people are able to express themselves and can feel as though they are empowering others. The goal of this intervention will be to create a young and exuberant identity, where teenagers and young adults are the policy makers. This population will lead a movement that says, “We understand that we are technologically dependent, but we will make a difference.” Reaching out, to this age group is pertinent to the success of this intervention. This will be an uphill struggle, as many teenagers and young adults hold technology close to their hearts; but getting them to realize that they can make a difference is where the power lies. The intervention must reach out and increase awareness and this can be done by working hand in hand with cell phone companies and policy makers.

A. Understanding Teenagers and Their Important Issues
In order to understand the issue, we must understand teenagers. This cannot be done on an individual basis though. Everyone knows that when you tell a kid, child, teenager, or young adult to do something, most of the time they ultimately do the opposite. This is what is called the Psychological Reactance Theory. When laws and policies are thrust at teenagers, such as the GDL or Hands free only laws for cell phones, they develop an emotional reaction because they view this as a perceived threat to their behavioral freedoms. In order to mitigate this reactance, the intervention must aim for three implicit goals: have a very clear and concise message, give youth control of the message, and have support to justify the claim that is being made. Similarity is the easiest way to decrease reactance. The subjects being portrayed in the message should be as similar to those of the teenagers/ young adults, and there should not be an authority figure portrayed. Evidence has shown that even when a message is threatening, similarity reduced reactance.
Also, this message should be visual. The Gwent Police did a good job on their PSA, but failed in the support for their message. A more effective use of the PSA would be to use the same girls and the same scenario, but make it more realistic and focus less on the violence and gory imagery. This is where the message becomes lost or is overshadowed.

B. Warnings and New Technology
To successfully brand this intervention, the campaign should hold a contest, where all teenagers can, build their own slogan/ warning to be printed on every cell phone box demonstrating the dangers of its use on the road, both from dialing and texting. This contest will give the teenagers a sense of “ownership”, in both the policy and the campaign. They will feel like their voice is being heard and that they have a part in the policy that is being implemented. Once teenagers feel that they have a sense of ownership, they will value the idea at a disproportionate level.
Additionally, with the evolution of the cell phone and the technological advances that are being developed, similar developments are being made to combat the distractions. There are services and programs that are being developed to help drivers get rid of the distraction, a sort of individual intervention. So, if this technology is being developed, why not implement it in every cell phone? For example, ZoomSaver is a free service that uses one’s cell phone GPS sensors to determine whether they are at driving speeds, and then disables their phone until they stop the car. Ford and Microsoft are developing cars where computers will dial and read text messages to you. Other companies, such as ObdEdge, started testing their call-blocking system. ObdEdge charges companies $85, plus about $5 monthly, for each vehicle equipped with Cellcontrol. Cellcontrol places restrictions on phones based on the GPS signal, data from the car or nearby cell phone towers. Any incoming calls are then routed to the voicemail or a message explaining that the phone’s owner is currently driving. Exceptions can be made for certain numbers (16). This is being considered by numerous insurance companies because they know that these distractions cause accidents. Although, insurance companies cannot force people to purchase this service, they can offer a 5-10% discount on their annual policy (16). This new technology coupled with the warning message will help with the success of this public health intervention.

C. Social Marketing
Since the youth are so dependent on technology, the intervention must get with the times and use this to their advantage. The campaign must focus on youth social networks, or influence those that they closely associate with. The focus should be on viral marketing, which is a strategy of the social network theory. The campaign must broadcast itself on websites and other social networks sites that young people easily relate to, such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. At the same time, this will also spread the word about the youth movement that is occurring, and urge other youth to join in. The campaign can post pictures, ads, and PSAs that are memorable and serve a clear message. If they are effective, then the youth will remember. Ultimately, the youth will remember what they choose to remember.
Also, as one can learn from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that people will not change their behavior until their basic needs are met, and this is especially true amongst youth. Many teenagers live with availability bias, that something is more probable if it has happened to them. So, knowing this, the campaign must actively seek out youth that text messaging has dramatically affected. This will continue to give other youth both the assurance that this is a continuing problem and also that it is a problem that is happening to people that are similar to them.
To tackle this problem, we must use these various networks, using some of these theories to get youth to believe that they are susceptible, and the only way to do this is by showing them visually. The PSAs posted, as stated numerous times, must be emotional and relatable; and if this is done, then success is possible. Campaigns with these goals are both possible and evident, as seen in the Truth Campaign and, which actively engage youth in the fight against tobacco.

Little is known of what teenagers perceive as driving dangers, factors to enhance safety, or ways to present interventions that resonate with youth. To effectively influence teenaged drivers’ safety, we must understand risk and safety from their viewpoint (14). Technology will continue to grow and develop. The industry will continue to thrive. Through all of this, the population will continue to increase and the problem will continue to grow. The most important thing to understand is that we can still have an impact, but the key to this impact are the youth who pose the problem. Everyone must work together; we cannot sequester youth and deem them problem. We must use them to cultivate the solution, for they are the foundation for change.
Every year, Teen drivers are far more likely than other drivers to be involved in fatal crashes because they lack driving experience and tend to take greater risks. Cell phones have become an integral part of our everyday lives, especially for teens. Text messaging has become a more prominent issue when it comes to distracted teen drivers. In a 2007 study by Liberty Mutual Group, 46 percent of teens admitted to text messaging while driving, while 37 percent rated text messaging as “extremely” or “very distracting” (16).
Technology and motor vehicles must find a healthy division. The two cannot co-exist. We know that calling, sending email, or text messaging at 60 miles per hour is a death sentence. We know this but we truly believe that this is something that will never happen to us. We are too optimistic and too naïve. The people in the previous examples, Philippa Curtis and Robert Sanchez, they too believed that text messaging or calling was no big deal, but now they know differently. A need for a public health intervention is now, we can no longer wait, for lives are at stake.


1) Simmons, A. (2008, September 16). L.A. Train Crash death toll at 26. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from
2) Zezima, K., & Robbins, L. (2009, May 10). Cellphone Ban After Boston Trolley Crash. The New York Times. Retrieved from
3) Rosenthal, E. (2009, November 2). When Texting Kills, Britain Offers Path to Prison. The New York Times. Retrieved from
4) Richtel, M. (2009e, December 7). Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks. The New York Times. Retrieved from
5) Juarez, P. (2006). A conceptual framework for reducing risky teen driving behaviors among minority youth. Injury Prevention, 12(suppl_1), i49-i55. doi: 10.1136/ip.2006.012872
6) Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., & Watson, B. (2008). Dialling and driving: Factors influencing intentions to use a mobile phone while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(6), 1893-1900. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2008.07.005
7) Clifford, S. (2009, September 1). Doubts About Scare Tactics on Drivers Who Text. The New York Times. Retrieved from
8) Beck, K. H., Yan, F., & Wang, M. Q. (2007). Cell phone users, reported crash risk, unsafe driving behaviors and dispositions: A survey of motorists in Maryland. Journal of Safety Research, 38(6), 683-688. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.09.006
9) Heck, K. E., & Carlos, R. M. (2008). Passenger distractions among adolescent drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 39(4), 437-443. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2008.03.003
10) Richtel, M. (2009c, July 19). Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks. The New York Times. Retrieved from
11) Bunkley, N. (2009, September 11). Ford Backs Ban on Text Messaging by Drivers. The New York Times. Retrieved from
12) Foss, R. D., Goodwin, A. H., McCartt, A. T., & Hellinga, L. A. (2009). Short-term effects of a teenage driver cell phone restriction. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 419-424. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.01.004
13) Al-Darrab, I. A., Khan, Z. A., & Ishrat, S. I. (2009). An experimental study on the effect of mobile phone conversation on drivers' reaction time in braking response. Journal of Safety Research, 40(3), 185-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2009.02.009
14) Ginsburg, K. R., Winston, F. K., Senserrick, T. M., Garcia-Espana, F., Kinsman, S., Quistberg, D. A., et al. (2008). National Young-Driver Survey: Teen Perspective and Experience With Factors That Affect Driving Safety. Pediatrics, 121(5), e1391-1403. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-2595
15) Dossey, L.Plugged In: At What Price? The Perils and Promises of Electronic Communication. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science and Healing, 5(5), 257-262. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2009.06.006
16) Grobart, S. (2009, November 22). High-Tech Devices Help Drivers Put Down Phone. The New York Times. Retrieved from
17) Alm, H., & Nilsson, L. (1995). The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 27(5), 707-715. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(95)00026-V
18) Brookhuis, K. A., de Vries, G., & de Waard, D. (1991). The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 23(4), 309-316. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(91)90008-S
19) Cell Phone Driving Laws December 2009. (n.d.). . Governors Highway Safety Association.
20) Collet, C., Clarion, A., Morel, M., Chapon, A., & Petit, C. (2009). Physiological and behavioural changes associated to the management of secondary tasks while driving. Applied Ergonomics, 40(6), 1041-1046. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.01.007
21) Committee on Injury, V., & Committee on Adolescence. (2006). The Teen Driver. Pediatrics, 118(6), 2570-2581. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2830
22) Cooper, J. M., Vladisavljevic, I., Medeiros-Ward, N., Martin, P. T., & Strayer, D. L. (2009). An investigation of driver distraction near the tipping point of traffic flow stability. Human Factors, 51(2), 261-268.
23) Forward, S. E. (2006). The intention to commit driving violations - A qualitative study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 9(6), 412-426. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2006.02.003
24) Ginsburg, K. R., Durbin, D. R., Garcia-Espana, J. F., Kalicka, E. A., & Winston, F. K. (2009). Associations Between Parenting Styles and Teen Driving, Safety-Related Behaviors and Attitudes. Pediatrics, 124(4), 1040-1051. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3037
25) Hedlund, J. (2007). Novice teen driving: GDL and beyond. Journal of Safety Research, 38(2), 259-266. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.03.003
26) Hosking, S. G. (2006). The effects of text messaging on young novice driver performance.
27) Hosking, S., Young, K., & Regan, M. (2009). The Effects of Text Messaging on Young Drivers. HUMAN FACTORS, 51(4), 582-592. doi: 10.1177/0018720809341575
28) If you're driving, stay off the phone. (2007). The New Scientist, 194(2600), 17. doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)60973-7
29) Lee, J. D. (2007). Technology and teen drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 38(2), 203-213. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.02.008
30) McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., McCartt, A. T., Woodward, M., Haworth, C., Palamara, P., et al. (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study. BMJ, 331(7514), 428. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55
31) McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., & Woodward, M. (2006). Phone Use and Crashes While Driving: a Representative Survey of Drivers in Two Australian States. The Medical Journal of Australia, 185(11), 630-634.
32) McKnight, A. J., & McKnight, A. S. (2003). Young novice drivers: careless or clueless? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(6), 921-925. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00100-8
33) Morowatisharifabad, M. A. (2009). The Health Belief Model Variables as Predictors of Risky Driving Behaviors among Commuters in Yazd, Iran. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10(5), 436. doi: 10.1080/15389580903081016
34) Nelson, E., Atchley, P., & Little, T. D. (2009). The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 438-444. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.01.006
35) Neyens, D. M., & Boyle, L. N. (2007). The effect of distractions on the crash types of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(1), 206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.07.004
36) Richtel, M. (2009a, October 1). At 60 M.P.H., Office Work Is High Risk. The New York Times. Retrieved from
37) Richtel, M. (2009b, September 9). Driver Texting Now an Issue in the Back Seat. The New York Times. Retrieved from
38) Richtel, M. (2009d, July 28). In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin. The New York Times. Retrieved from
39) Senserrick, T. M. (2006). Reducing young driver road trauma: guidance and optimism for the future. Injury Prevention, 12(suppl_1), i56-i60. doi: 10.1136/ip.2006.012773
40) Shiffrin, M. A., & Silberschatz, A. (2009, October 5). Thumbs on the Wheel. The New York Times. Retrieved from
41) Sperber, D., Shiell, A., & Fyie, K. (2009). The cost-effectiveness of a law banning the use of cellular phones by drivers. Health Economics, 9999(9999), n/a. doi: 10.1002/hec.1546
42) Vehicles, M. (n.d.). Addressing the Problem of Distracted Driving and its Impacts to Road Safety.
43) Walsh, S. P., White, K. M., Watson, A. P., & Hyde, M. K. (n.d.). Psychosocial factors influencing mobile phone use while driving. Sydney: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
44) Walsh, S. P., & White, K. M. (2007). Me, My Mobile, and I: The Role of Self- and Prototypical Identity Influences in the Prediction of Mobile Phone Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2405-2434. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00264.x
45) Zhou, R., Wu, C., Patrick Rau, P., & Zhang, W. (2009). Young driving learners' intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 208-217. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2008.11.003

Labels: ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home