Cellular phone use while driving: A methodological checklist for investigating dual-task costs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.02.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Particular attention has been paid to the cognitive demands of driving a motor vehicle while simultaneously conversing on a cellular phone. This phenomenon has been investigated using three broad methods: correlational methods, simulator methods, and cognitive task methods. Strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods are reviewed, and patterns of findings from each method are discussed. As a result, a methodological checklist has been created to design consistent, optimal studies to investigate dual-task effect such as those present while concurrently driving and conversing on a cellular phone.

Section snippets

The performance operating characteristic method

Driving while talking on a cellular phone is a classic example of a dual-task. A dual-task is a task in which an operator is expected to perform two tasks simultaneously. Of interest is to what degree performing a secondary task (talking in this case) will influence performance on the primary task (in this case, driving is the primary task). The inherent limitation, however, is that by creating a situation in which a natural priority of tasks is created, such as talking and driving, it is

Checklist for ideal dual-task measurement

For laboratory experiments, we can conclude that an ideal study would exhibit each of the following design elements: (1) performance on both tasks should be measured, (2) if a complete measurement of the ability to shift focus from one task to another is desired, prioritization of tasks should be systematically altered (POC). Failing that, the prioritization levels adopted by participants should be investigated and reported, (3) the difficulty or complexity of both tasks should be manipulated,

Review of cellular phone accident risk literature

To date, research investigating dual-task interference as it relates to cellular phone use while driving can be described as belonging to one of three categories. “Correlational” (or regression) studies have attempted to demonstrate the relationship between the frequency or co-occurrence of cellular phone use with traffic accident frequency. Simulator studies (or studies simulating a roadway on a closed track) have attempted to demonstrate a decrement in driving performance (e.g. increase in

Discussion

In this sample of 17 (not counting correlational) studies investigating the effect of cellular phone conversations on driving accident risk, interesting patterns exist in relation to the checklist for an ideal study discussed above. To begin, four studies did not exhibit any of the four elements (completely) in their design, and while no studies exhibited all four design elements, three exhibited three of the four elements in their design.

Most notably, none of the studies discussed in this

References (39)

  • P. Atchley et al.

    Conversation limits the functional field of view

    Human Factors

    (2004)
  • A.D. Baddeley

    A 3 minute reasoning test based on grammatical transformation

    Psychonomic Science

    (1968)
  • V. Briem et al.

    Behavioural effects of mobile telephone use during simulated driving

    Ergonomics

    (1995)
  • I.D. Brown et al.

    Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1969)
  • K.T. Goode et al.

    Useful field of view and other neurocognitive indicators of crash risk in older adults

    Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

    (1998)
  • D. Gopher et al.

    On the psychophysics of workload – Why bother with subjective measures?

    Human Factors

    (1984)
  • D. Gopher et al.

    Workload – An examination of the concept

  • Hart et al.

    Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research

  • M.S. Horswill et al.

    The effect of interference on dynamic risk-taking judgments

    British Journal of Psychology

    (1999)
  • Cited by (22)

    • The interaction between speech intelligibility task and non-auditory tasks

      2015, Speech Communication
      Citation Excerpt :

      These so-called distracters can influence our ability to process a speech signal correctly. A compelling example, which became the direct inspiration for research in this area, is the effect of driving a car on the perception of speech signal (e.g. during phone conversations), and how the simultaneous perception of speech can affect driving (Brown et al., 1969; Dressel and Atchley, 2008; Levy et al., 2006; Treffner and Barrett, 2004). The activities, which hinder the speech perception are generally called distracters in these papers.

    • Mobile phone use while driving: Predicting drivers' answering intentions and compensatory decisions

      2012, Safety Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      These studies suggest that regardless of the mode of mobile phone use, driving should always be the primary task, and the act of phoning while driving should always be specified as a secondary task. In this dual-task scenario, drivers may not have enough cognitive capacity to allocate to both talking and driving simultaneously, and driving performance suffers when mental resources are diverted in favour of the secondary task (e.g., Dressel and Atchley, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009). The cumulative results of these studies suggest that mobile phone use while driving has a significant negative effect on drivers’ cognitive distraction or performance for both the hands-free and handheld modes.

    • Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving

      2011, Accident Analysis and Prevention
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, when participants listened to music or audio books, performance was not diminished suggesting it is more demanding cognitive tasks that reduce driving performance (Strayer and Johnston, 2001). Moreover, studies clearly document that relative to driving without any phone use, cell phone use negatively impacts the ability to stay within one's lane and leads to an impairment in a navigation tasks, while conversations with passengers have few negative effects (e.g., McKnight and McKnight, 1993; Strayer et al., 2001; Dressel and Atchley, 2008). Redelmeier and Weinstein (1999) reported that the risk of a crash when using a cellular phone was 4.3 times higher than when a cellular phone was not being used.

    • The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving

      2009, Accident Analysis and Prevention
      Citation Excerpt :

      The tragedy spawned many discussions, newspaper articles, and debates on whether restrictions should be placed on using telecommunication devices while driving. The act of driving while talking on a cellular phone is a classic example of a dual-task (see Dressel and Atchley, 2008, for a recent review). Because drivers do not have the cognitive capacity to attend to both talking and driving simultaneously, what should be the primary task (driving) suffers as a result of the secondary task (communicating via a telecommunications device).

    • Concurrent Working Memory Load May Increase or Reduce Cognitive Interference Depending on the Attentional Set

      2020, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text