Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Although college students may recognize that, at some times, cell phone use can be inappropriate (e.g., during a class lecture) or even life-threatening (e.g., while driving), they may still respond to calls or text messages in these situations in order to reap short-term rewards or eliminate uncomfortable thoughts or feelings. This study tested the prediction that mindfulness-based acceptance training may help prevent counterintentional cell phone use among college students. The mindfulness-based intervention was tested against implementation intention planning. Both of these strategies have been successfully used in numerous contexts to help people resist temptations and deal with distracting thoughts or urges. Participants perceived implementation intention planning to be more helpful than mindfulness training with reducing temptation to respond to calls and text messages as well as with reducing distraction caused by the phone. However, compared to control participants who only received a message about the consequences of cell phone distraction, students who received both the message and mindfulness training were significantly less likely to respond to a text message during their class time. Class time texting behavior did not differ significantly between the implementation intention condition and the message-only control condition. Only informing students about the potential negative consequences of cell phone use in certain situations may not be sufficient for preventing counterintentional cell phone use. Teaching students how to inhibit this behavior also is important. Mindfulness-based acceptance may be a promising technique to teach students how to prevent class-time cell phone use.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2013). 2012 traffic safety culture index. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Retrieved September 1, 2013 from, https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2012TrafficSafetyCultureIndex.pdf.
Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emotion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(12), 1849–1858.
Armitage, C. J. (2007). Efficacy of a brief worksite intervention to reduce smoking: The roles of behavioral and implementation intentions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(4), 376–390.
Brock, T. C., Brannon, L. A., & Bridgwater, C. (1990). Message effectiveness can be increased by matching appeals to recipients’ self-schemas: laboratory demonstrations and a national field experiment. In S. Agres, J. Edell, & T. Dubitsky (Eds.), Emotions in advertising: theoretical and practical explorations (pp. 285–315). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Feldman, G., Greeson, J., Renna, M., & Robbins-Monteith, K. (2011). Mindfulness predicts less texting while driving among young adults: examining attention- and emotion-regulation motives as potential mediators. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 856–861. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.020. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Forman, E. M., Butryn, M. L., Hoffman, K. L., & Herbert, J. D. (2009). An open trial of an acceptance-base behavioral intervention for weight loss. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 16, 223–235. CrossRef
Froese, A. D., Carpenter, C. N., Inman, C. N., Schooley, J. R., Barnes, R. B., Brecht, P. W., & Chacon, J. D. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual learning. College Student Journal, 46, 323–332.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: the role of intentions. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 141–185. CrossRef
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. CrossRef
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. CrossRef
Hayes, S. C., Bissett, R. T., Korn, Z., Zettle, R. D., Rosenfarb, I. S., Cooper, L. D., & Grundt, A. M. (1999). The impact of acceptance versus control rationales on pain tolerance. The Psychological Record, 49, 33–47. CrossRef
Hofmann, W., Deutsch, R., Lancaster, K., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). Cooling the heat of temptation: mental self-control and the automatic evaluation of tempting stimuli. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 17–25.
It Can Wait. (2013). Retrieved June 15, 2013, from http://www.itcanwait.com/
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 141–156. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg016.
Landry, D. J., Kaeser, L., & Richards, C. L. (1999). Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies. Family Planning Perspectives, 31, 280–286.
Mischel, W., & Patterson, C. J. (1976). Substantive and structural elements of effective plans for self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 942–950. CrossRef
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2011). Driver electronic device use in 2010. (Report No. DOT HS 811 517). Retrieved September 5, 2013, from. www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). Digest of distracted driving laws. (Report No. DOT HS 811 770). Retrieved September 1, 2013, from http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/state-laws.html
Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1975). Plans to resist distraction. Developmental Psychology, 11, 369–378. CrossRef
Patterson, C. J., & Mischel, W. (1976). Effects of temptation-inhibiting and task-facilitating plans on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 209–217. CrossRef
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926. CrossRef
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement in responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81. CrossRef
Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum Associates.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M 2: media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125–139.
Schroeder, P., Meyers, M., & Kostyniuk, L. (2013, April). National survey on distracted driving attitudes and behaviors—2012. (Report No. DOT HS 811 729). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: psychosocial factors in adolescent decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 249–272. CrossRef
Verplanken, B., & Faes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of forming implementation intentions on healthy eating. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 591–604. CrossRef
- Testing Mindfulness-Based Acceptance Against Implementation Intentions to Discourage Counterintentional Cell Phone Use
Megan M. Miller
Laura A. Brannon
- Springer US