Section 1: Article Summary
The researchers of the study titled “Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving” wanted to find out how conversing with passengers in a vehicle is different from having a cell phone conversation when one is driving. The researchers thus investigated how conversing with a passenger would be different from a talking using a hands-free cell phone in terms of driving performance. The researchers wanted to examine how the driving performance would be impacted in terms of operational, tactical, and strategic level. Additionally, the researchers wanted to determine the dynamics of the conversation which are affected by contextual factors.
The study is important as distracted driving has been one of the root causes of accidents when driving. Previous literature suggested that driving performance is negatively affected when one is simultaneously conversing on the cell phone. Additionally, any activity that or task that diverts the attention of the driver away can cause impairment. However, the impact of having conversations with other passengers when driving has not been understood. By comparing the difference, the study established to find out if conversations during driving can be one of the reasons for poor judgment when driving. If having conversations when driving can impair one’s judgment, then drivers would be discouraged from engaging in conversations when driving. On the other hand, if it improves one’s judgment, then drivers would be encouraged to engage in conversations.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The researchers collected the data by involving 96 adults that received course credit for participation. They made use of a driving simulator that exposed the driver to a simulated driving environment. Participants were first familiarized with the use of the driving simulator and then undertook the test. The participants were then exposed to various challenges in driving such as conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and driving without any distraction. In the conversation condition, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about a past experience where their life had been threatened.
The researchers collected data about the driving performance involving the operational level, the tactical level, and strategic processes in driving. The data on the operational level was based on how well the participants could stay at the center of the lane without drifting or lateral movements. The tactical level was measured based on driver speed of the car and the distance kept between the driver’s car and the vehicle next to them. The strategic level measured the ability to follow navigation instruction and taking the correct exit (Drews et al., 2008).
The results from the study showed that the number of driving errors was at its highest when one was engaged in cell phone conversations. However, passenger conversations had more references to the traffic and the production rate and complexity of speech of both parties dropped as the traffic increased. The results showed that passenger conversation is different from cell phone conversations because of the effect of the environment and the surrounding traffic. Conversations about the traffic can help the driver and passenger share situation awareness. The driving condition can also reduce the complexity of the conversation and thus mitigate the potential negative effects of being engaged in a conversation.
The implications of the study can be used to discourage cell phone conversations when driving and encourage passenger conversations. Drivers ought to be penalized for engaging in a cell phone conversation when driving because it impacts their performance negatively. This puts their lives and the lives of others using the same road at risk. Conversations between the passenger and driver should not be discouraged as it can improve driver awareness on the driving conditions. Passenger conversations are also automatically controlled by the driving condition and should not be necessarily discouraged.
Section 2: Reactions
The things that surprised me most with the study was the methods and a part of the results. The study made use of a simulated driving environment instead of a normal driving environment to monitor the passengers. When studying passenger and cell phone conversations, one expects that the study would involve a real-life driving example. However, the researchers opted for the use of a simulated environment. I find this is partly because of ethical concerns when carrying out the experiment in real-life as engaging in cell phone conversations can endanger the lives of the participants.
The use of a simulated environment where the driver feels completely safe may have negatively impacted the credibility of the results. I found the result of passenger conversations improving driving performance surprising. This is because passenger conversations are a form of distraction and should thus reduce driving performance. Surprisingly, the nature of the conversations like that of the driving conditions improved the driving performance. The rationale was that conversations reduce as traffic increases hence a reduction in driver distraction.
I find that the researchers used an appropriate method for measuring the impact of cell phone conversations. The method was safe, ethical, and did not put anyone at risk throughout the study. However, I think that the researchers could have used a real-world example and compare driving with passenger conversations versus driving with no passenger conversations. This could be done with the use of cameras installed on the vehicle to monitor and assess the performance of the driver. Carrying out the experiment on the real-world would provide accurate results on the effects of passenger conversations when driving.
References
Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied , 14 (4), 392.
