Impact of Education and Awareness Programs on the Usage and Attitude Towards Texting While Driving Among Young Drivers

Final Report

IMPACT OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS ON THE USAGE AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS TEXTING WHILE DRIVING AMONG YOUNG DRIVERS

Sharad K Maheshwari

Associate Professor School of Business Hampton University Hampton, VA 23668 757-727-5605 [email protected]

And

Kelwyn A. D’Souza

Professor School of Business Hampton University Hampton, VA 23668 757-727-5037 [email protected]

March, 2014 Hampton University Eastern Seaboard Intermodal Transportation Applications Center (ESITAC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 3. RESEARCH PROCEDURE ...... 7 a. Objectives of the Proposed Research ...... 7 b. Research Design...... 7 c. Data Collection: ...... 8 d. Data Collection, Phase 1 Focus Group ...... 9 e. Analysis of Focus Group Data ...... 9 f. Design of Instruments ...... 9 g. Treatments...... 10 h. Data Collection, Phase II ...... 10 i. Results and Analysis ...... 10 4. DISCUSSIONS ...... 21 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 22 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... 23 7. REFERENCES ...... 23 8. APPENDICES ...... 26

IMPACT OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS ON THE USAGE AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS TEXTING WHILE DRIVING AMONG YOUNG DRIVERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Texting-while-driving has become a new menace on the roads. The problem has become a major cause of highways accidents and injuries especially among young drivers. It well documented in research literature that this problem is more prevalent among younger drivers largely because they are the heaviest users of the information technology including texting. Furthermore, the usage of texting is growing rapidly among millennium generation drivers. As this population grows old, texting might become even more prevalent on the roads. This has potential of further increasing accident hazards due to texting-while-driving in the future.

In a very short span of time, texting-while-driving problem became such a large issue that 32 US states and territories have made some laws against it. However, law is only one part of the equation. Driver education is the equally important to solve the issues. It is very important to educate driving public about danger of texting-while-driving. One can draw parallel with seatbelt laws. Each state has seatbelt law on their books for a longtime. At the same time, both state and federal governments made strong efforts in the area of public education about advantages of using seatbelts. Despite aggressive enforcement and creative awareness programs, it took decades to improve seatbelt usage among drivers. Therefore, it is imperative to start strongly education programs about danger of texting-while-driving now.

The available literature suggests younger driver have different perceptions of risk that impacts their behavior related to cell phone use while driving. As mentioned, there are laws being written to combat the problem. It has also been reported that the decrease in cell phone use after enactment of law does not hold over the time and that use of cellular phones actually increases following the initial decrease. Moreover, the enforcement of the laws related to texting-while- driving is very difficult and challenging. This challenge is evident from reported increases in the use of cell phone and related electronic device activities while driving. Furthermore, law based solutions alone can’t change driving behavior. These solutions have to be complimented with education and awareness programs. Several studies have been completed about reasons on why young drivers are attracted to texting-while-driving. However, there is a lack of studies in the area of impact of education and awareness programs about danger of texting-while-driving. In this two different education and awareness programs were designed based on the input from the young drivers. 72 randomly selected participants were divided into three groups: control, awareness treatment and education treatment. A pretest-posttest experiment was conducted on each group. The results of these experiments measured the effectiveness of the selected programs.

The major findings of the research are:  Young drivers are generally aware of danger of texting-while-driving.  Majority of young drivers do text while driving.  Young drivers receive different risk level for reading text than either initiating new conversation or replying to the text message.  After treatments, drivers perceived texting-while-driving as more dangerous activity than before treatment.

 After both treatments, there was slight reduction in the texting-while-driving behavior. The video treatment (PSAs) group showed more reduction than the lecture group.  Participants with higher educational achievements show slight reduction in texting-while- driving.  Increased awareness of danger of texting-while-driving is a positive sign. It indicates that repeated consistent messaging about danger of texting-while-driving may help in reducing the texting-while-driving among young drivers.

IMPACT OF EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS ON THE USAGE AND ATTITUDE TOWARDS TEXTING WHILE DRIVING AMONG YOUNG DRIVERS

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the main objectives of the Eastern Seaboard Intermodal Transportation Applications Center (ESITAC) at the Hampton University was to study safety related problems in the region. The Center’s efforts in this area are being directed towards a new safety concerns; distracted driving. According to National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates more than one-half of a million crashes annually occur due to distraction of the driver caused by the in-vehicle technologies (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). Distracted driving is a very common occurrence in today’s fast paced society. The area of research is more relevant to younger drivers due to their innate affinity and hyper use for technology.

Approximately, 5,500 people were killed from distracted driving and about 1,000 of those deaths are attributed to cell-phone related distractions (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1, 2009). It is also estimated by NHTSA that cell phone use while driving has declined year over year in 2009. This percentage decline includes decline in manipulation of the cell phone like texting, email access, etc. according to NHTSA’s study conducted in 2009 (NHTSA-1, 2009). However, in the age group 16-24 year old drivers, cell phone use is still significantly higher (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2, 2009). Furthermore, there are several other reports and papers indicating much higher use of cell phone and other related devices as well as increasing trend in their usage on the road (Atchley, Atwood, & Boulton 2011; Vlingo Corp, 2010, AAA, 2009). Vlingo Corp (2010) reported a huge increase in the texting from 26% to 35% in 2010. This difference in cell phone usage data by NHTSA and other research reports may be due to the method of data collection: NHTSA reports are based on the observational data while others reports are based on self reporting data.

It should be noted that any driver faces many other forms of distraction. And all distractions have potential to interfere with the main task of driving. Other common driver distractions are eating, reaching to other objects, adjusting controls, smoking, grooming, and tiredness/sleepy. Recent data shows that cell phone use (without texting) is fast becoming among the worst driver distraction (Ranney, 2008).

Regardless how the numbers are calculated, distracted driving due to electronic devices is not a welcome trend. There are number of studies indicating that drivers, ability to control the car and inability to follow the road signs and instructions is severely impaired when he/she is distracted due to texting on a cell phone or manipulating an electronic device. Approximately, 20% of all crashes with injuries are attributed to distracted-driving (NHTSA-1, 2009). A significant portion of these crashes are due to cell phone distractions. There is no separate statistics available on cell-phone related crashes by cities or MSAs but one could assume Hampton Roads has similar percentages of injury crashes due to cell phone use while driving. Furthermore according to one report, Hampton Roads had the highest crash incidents in the state compared to other regions of the state on the basis of millions of vehicle-mile traveled (Nichols, 2007).

This study was designed to further understand if the cell phone based distraction and to determine effectiveness of education program among young drivers. The major objectives of the research project were: 1. To delineate a set of implicit and explicit attitudes of young drivers towards texting- while-driving in the targeted population. And develop a set of awareness and education programs based on the delineated attitudes. 2. To determine effectiveness of awareness and education programs on texting-while- driving. This process of selection and measuring success of awareness and education programs could be replicated across the region to teach young drivers danger of texting while driving.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The danger of cell phone use in driving has been a part of debate since cell phone became more prevalent in late 1990s. There is general consensus that the cell phone use reduces drivers’ ability to properly control the vehicle and to maneuver the traffic (Young, Ragan & Hammer, 2003). There is also growing body of literature on danger of texting-while-driving. Hosking, Young, & Regan (2007) reported that driver while texting spend 400% more time off the road compared when not texting. This ultimately leads to poor driving performance and increases chance of crashes. Olson, et al. (2009) reported that risk of accident is 23 times higher in the commercial vehicles if driver is texting. Lansdown (2009) administered a self-reporting survey in UK and reported that three most dangerous distractions according to drivers themselves were writing text messages, reading text messages, and using the hand-held cell-phone. Different driving impairments due to cell phone use while driving are also reported by different authors including incorrect lane changing, speed variability, reduce breaking speed, not following road signs, etc. Almost all younger adults indicate that they use a cellular phone while driving and an alarmingly high number (as many as 95%) report they text and drive, even though they recognize it is not safe to do so (Atchley, 2012). Wilson & Stimpson (2010) studied trend in fatality rates 1999-2005 using data from Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and reported that there is a 25% increase in fatalities due to distracted driving.

A different studies of driver behavior reported several reasons why driver engage in risky driving habits. Lee et al. (2008) reported that young drivers are less likely to suspend cell phone use or texting while involve in difficult driving situation. Nelson, Atchley, & Little (2009) reported 72% use of texting while driving in a survey of college students. And they reported that the use of cell phone is more dependent on the value driver is placing on the importance of the call than any other risk factor. The young driver is not deter from texting due to perceived risk of apprehension or perceived risk of crashing (Walsh et al. 2008). In a study all 16-year-olds in Connecticut who were involved in nonfatal crashes during the first 8 months of licensure were interviewed, and police crash reports were examined (Braitman, Kirley, McCartt, & Chaudhary, 2008) to determine reasons of accidents. All crash types and contributing factors were identified. Three factors contributed about equally to their crashes: failing to detect another vehicle or traffic control, speeding, and losing control of the vehicle or sliding. Most failures to detect another vehicle or traffic control involved not looking thoroughly, distraction, or inattention. The higher likelihood of rear-end collisions was observed for those drivers who were engaged in

5 passenger and cell phone distractions (Neyens &Boyle, 2007). They argue that this type of evidence provides a strong support for greater education for these distractions in the graduated driver licensing programs and driver education

Cell phones now integral part of an individual. In a very different type of study, Bayer & Campbell (2012), found that cell phone use is fast becoming an unconscious decision on the part of driver. To ascertain this, a survey was conducted utilizing a frequency-independent version of the experimentally validated Self-Report Habit Index. The findings suggest that texting while driving behavior may be partially attributable to individuals doing so without awareness, control, attention, and intention regarding their own actions.

Impact and assessment of cell phone based driver inattention and resulting crash is being studied by several researchers. Reports show different degree of accidents caused by the cell phone inattention. Beanland, Fitzharris & Young (2012) studied eleven years of crash reports in Australia. They reported that 57.6% of cases showed evidence of driver inattention. Boyle, & Westlake (2012) research shows that the most common subtypes of inattention were restricted attention, primarily due to intoxication activities while driving to their opinions of what they actually consider to be distractions. They also reported that approximately 80% teenage driver considered texting while driving as unsafe still majority of them engaged in texting while driving at least moderately if not extensively. Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997) used a case-crossover design to study cellular phone and crash linkage. Their study indicated that a majority of serious injury crashes involve driver inattention and found that cell phone users were four times more likely to be in the crash compared to non-users.

A study conducted by Drews, Yazdani, Godfrey, Cooper, and Strayer (2009) found that analysis of driving performance revealed that participants in the dual-task condition responded more slowly to the onset of braking lights and showed impairments in forward and lateral control compared with a driving-only (without cell phone) condition. Their research shows that a larger number of drivers who text while driving were involved in crashes as oppose to individuals who refuse to text while driving. In a laboratory experiment using a gaze tracking system among professional drivers, Jimenez, Bergasa, Daza & Gonzalez (2012) reported that most accidents occurred while drivers were using hands-free devices. That shows that any inattention could be dangerous.

There are many forums promoting awareness of danger of texting-while-driving. Several public figures are involved in awareness campaigns. Cell phone, insurance and other businesses are also trying to promote the message. US Department of Transportation Education has mobilized awareness program through distraction.gov. According to Regan (2006), there is still need of more “public campaigns to raise awareness of risks, especially for hands-free phone use and text messaging; highlight factors that increase vulnerability to risks, especially driver inexperience; promote strategies for minimizing distraction, especially the purchase of the most ergonomic hands-free phone types; and raise awareness of penalties for using hand-held phones.” Saqer, Visser, Strohl, & Parasuraman (2012) used video game simulation methods for distracted driving; they observed a reduction in the cell phone use among graduate students at George Mason University who participated in simulation experiment. They proposed that this type of programs can be a practical and cost-effective program for training young drivers.

Many states are making laws restricting cell phone use in one or the other way. However, effectiveness of law still is to be studied over a long period. In a preliminary study conducted by Foss, Goodwin, McCartt & Hellinga (2009), about the effectiveness of North Carolina law enacted in 2006, found that “although the proportion of teenagers who reported using phones while driving declined somewhat following the law, about half admitted they used their phones, if they had driven, on the day prior to the interview.” They reported that North Carolina's cell phone restriction had little to no effect on teenage drivers’ use of cell phones shortly after the law took effect. They reported similar results in more comprehensive study in North Carolina about the effect of the law two-year after its enactment (Goodwin, O'Brien, & Foss, 2012). McCartt and Geary (2004) had found that short period after enactment of the new cell phone law in a state, the positive effect of cell phone law wear away and driver actually started using more cell phones than before enactment of the law. Law rarely is a major deterrent. Furthermore, laws intended improve public safety are undercut by the unwillingness of law enforcement to enforce the laws in the face of negative public sentiment (Lim & Chi, 2013). The epidemic of driving while distracted by cellular technologies is an important example of a situation where this lack of uniform laws has contributed to the failed attempts by several states to adequately improve safety by reducing the problem behavior.

The literature clearly indicating that there is a need to understand and to create more education and awareness campaign on cell phone use, texting-while-driving and other electronics devices distractions during the driving. There is also a need to understand why driver engage in such behavior. Furthermore, what education and awareness programs can help in modifying of risky behavior? How can impact of such program be measured?

3. RESEARCH PROCEDURE a. Objectives of the Proposed Research Research was based on the lack of data in the area of effectiveness educational programs to reduce the texting while driving among young drivers. As indicated in the previous section, research shows evidence of the negative impact of any distraction including texting-while-driving. This research is an attempt to fill this lacuna in literature. The proposed research was focused on the designing education programs for texting-while-driving and assessing impact of such education programs on the young drivers’ behavior. The major objectives of the research project are:  To delineate a set of implicit and explicit attitudes of young drivers towards texting- while-driving in the targeted population. And develop a set of awareness and education programs based on the delineated attitudes.  To determine effectiveness of awareness and education programs on texting-while- driving. This process of selection and measuring success of awareness and education programs could be replicated across the region to teach young drivers danger of texting while driving. b. Research Design This research was focused on young drivers. The research was initiated by attempting to understand the young drivers’ behavior and attitude toward risky driving. Based on these attributes, a set of awareness/education programs were created or selected. Research was conducted in two phases. Phase one was focus group research to understands the attributes and

7 factors which influence young drivers’ driving behavior. Based on the focus group analysis, phase II was designed. Main objective at the second phase was to determine the effectiveness of the education and awareness programs. Figure 1 below shows the schematic of the research at phase II.

Demographical Factor

Post Treat.

Pre-Treat Educational Environmental Factors Driving Driving Behavior Treatment Behavior

Personality Factors

Figure 1. Research Schematic Phase II

To determine the impact of education and awareness, two separate programs were selected. The education program was based on a single one-hour lecture session from a law enforcement officer and the awareness program was based on one 50-minitute of video and fact presentations to participants. To measure the impact of these programs two true experiments were planned and conducted. Experimental framework is presented in Figure 2.

R O1 X O2 (treatment) R O3 O4 (control) Effect: (O2-O1)-(O4-O3) Where, R -Randomness in selection O1/O3 -Pre-assessment X -Treatment O2/O4 -Post-assessment

Figure 2. Experimental Design c. Data Collection: Sampling Frame: There are approximately 1000 Freshmen each year at the Hampton University. Every freshman is required to take the orientation class called UNV101. This class in Fall 2011 was the sampling frame for the experiment. The study was announced in the UNV 101 seminar (all students in the UNV 101 must attend these seminars) and participants were offered $50.00 compensation for participation. 105 students initially signed up. However, only 80 finally provided their information. These 80 students were selected as the sample of total sample for the

8 study. d. Data Collection, Phase 1 Focus Group Two separate focus groups were conducted in November, 2011. Each focus group was an hour long. Dr. Sharad Maheshwari was the moderator for both focus groups. 16 students participated in the focus group 1 and 11 participated in the focus group 2. Moderator led the discussion with three lead-questions. These questions were: “do you text while driving?” “do you consider it safe?” and “why do you text?” e. Analysis of Focus Group Data Major themes of the focus were recorded by the moderator. Summaries of the focus group data is presented in Appendix (i) and (ii). Both focus groups provided similar information and themes. As expected students indicated that they do texting-while-driving rather extensively. Most students did indicate that this was a dangerous activity but they still engage in it. Peer pressure and role model issues surfaced repeatedly. Almost all students individually believed that they are better at texting than their peers. They either implied or outright said that since they are better at texting therefore they are not at any risk of accidents. There are several statements made indicating inconsistent messages from parents and other adults. Major themes are presented below in the Table 1.

No. Themes 1 Driver Behavior 2 Driver Perceptions 3 Social Pressure 4 Other Influencers 5 Perceived Risks 6 Technical Skills

Table 1. Major Themes in Focus Group Data f. Design of Instruments Based on the literature review and focus group data, four survey instruments were designed. One instrument was for pre-assessment of the driving behavior. And three other instruments were for post-assessment of changes in the driving behavior. The pre-assessment instrument had 50 questions. These questions were divided into several major categories (see Table 2). These categories are based on the focus group analysis. All major elements are included the Appendix (iii). Complete pre-treatment survey instrument is included in the Appendix (iv).

Post-treatment instruments were small. They asked for 8-13 questions largely repeating questions from the pre-treatment instrument. All instruments were pre-tested among 10 students. The pre- testing was carried out to eliminate errors and modify the language of the questions. Basic validation of the instruments was carried out by group of faculty members. It must be noted that no test were performed to ascertain the reliability of the instruments. All three post treatment instruments are included in the Appendices (v), (vi) and (vii).

No Assessment Subsets

1 Demographical Assessment 2 Driving Need Assessments 3 Cell Phone Usage 4 Texting-While Driving Assessment 5 Family and Friends Texting Assessment Self Assessment and Other Media 6 Influencers 7 Risky Behaviors Profile

Table 2. Instrument Survey Major Themes in Focus Group Data g. Treatments Two separate treatments were applied. Treatment 1 was focused on awareness and treatment 2 was focused on education. Treatment 1 included a presentation of facts and set of eight videos from different sources including AAA Foundation for Safety, News video, and other PSA. Videos were selected based on the contents like instruction, actual accident and aftermath of texting-while- driving accidents. These topics were selected based on the analysis of focus groups which indicated lack of knowledge, over confidence and feeling of invincibility. Entire presentation is included in Appendix (viii). Treatment 2 was an instructive lecture with possibility of Q/A with a law enforcement officer. Focus group data was shared with the officer to build his talk around the major themes. Details are included in the Appendix (x). h. Data Collection, Phase II All survey data was collected using BlackBoard system. A separate class was created on the BlackBoard for the experiment and all participants were registered in class. All surveys were set as the examinations on the BlackBoard to keep track of which survey belongs to which participant. Participants were divided into three groups: one control group, and two treatment groups. Treatment groups were randomly set at 30 and control group was set at 20. Out of 80, 78 participants answered pre-survey. However, due to logistics (participants unable to attend due to some other commitment) and attrition only 72 participants completed both pre and post surveys: 18 in the control group, 22 in treatment 1 (video) and 32 from treatment 2 lecture samples. All the raw data from the pre-assessment, post assessments and related code books are included in the Appendices x to xv. i. Results and Analysis There were 72 usable responses from the participants. It must be pointed out that participants were required to fill complete surveys in order to claim $50.00 compensation. Hence, missing data was not really any issue in this research. There were 45 female and 27 male participants. 96% of the participants were 18 or 19 years old. That was the target population group for the study. Table 3 shows all the demographical data. About 70% students had high school GPA higher than 3.1. 60% had SAT or equivalent score of 1400 or more. 68% reported that their high school was in urban area.

Variables Levels Frequency Percentage Gender Female 45 62.50% Male 27 37.50%

Age 18 42 58.33% (years) 19 26 36.11% 20 3 4.17% 22 1 1.39% GPAGroups Less than 2.5 1 1.39% 2.51-2.8 2 2.78% 2.81-3.1 19 26.39% 3.11-3.4 15 20.83% 3.41-3.7 19 26.39% More than 3.7 16 22.22% SATRange Less than 1000 2 2.78% 1001-1200 3 4.17% 1201-1400 24 33.33% 1401-1600 27 37.50% 1601-1800 12 16.67% More than 1801 4 5.56% UrbanRual Urban 49 68.06% Non-Urban 23 31.94% Table 3. Participant Demographical Data

Frequency distribution of by gender, age, GPA ranges, SAT scores and urban/rural locations are presented in Figures 3 through 7 respectively.

Gender

Frequency 20

0 Female Male

Figure 3. Distribution of participants by gender

Age Distribution

20 Frequency 15

0 18 19 20 22 Age in Years

Figure 4. Distribution of participants by age

GPA Distribution

Frequency 8

0 Less than 2.51-2.8 2.81-3.1 3.11-3.4 3.41-3.7 More 2.5 than 3.7

Figure 5. Distribution of participants by GPA

SAT

15 Frequency 10

Figure 6. Distribution of participants by SAT Scores

Urban or Rural

30 Frequency

0 Urban Non-Urban

Figure 7. Distribution of participants by Urban/Rural location of high school

Pre-treatment instrument collected data on the participants self perception of safety. Three separate questions were asked in this category. These were “do you follow the posted speed limit?”, “do you follow other road safety rules?” and “do you consider yourself a safe driver?” Based on these three responses, a dichotomous safety variable was created, self perceived safe or self perceived unsafe driver. Participant was in the self perceived safe category, if participant has rated himself/herself as safe on two out of three measures. Almost all participants, 70 out of 72 considered themselves safe drivers. (Refer Table 4 and Figure 8 below).

Variables Levels Frequency Percentage Self Safe Driver Assessment Self Assessed Safe 70 97.22% Self Assessed Unsafe 2 2.78% Influence No Family Texter 57 79.17% Family Texter 15 20.87% Exposure Low Exposure to PSAs 60 83.33% High Exopsure to PSAs 12 16.67% Risk Traits Low Risk 45 62.50% High Risk 27 37.50%

Table 4. Participants perception of safe driver, peer/parental influence, exposure to Texting- While-Driving and risk traits.

Self Assessment of Safe Driver

Frequency 30

0 Self Assessed Safe Self Assessed Unsafe

Figure 8. Participants self assessment of their driving safety

As reported in the literature that peer and parental influence modifies young driver behavior. Data on sibling, parents and friends’ texting while driving habit was collected. Most participants reported that neither their friends, parents or siblings text while they are driving. A composite dichotomous variable for influence was created: no influence if no one has been reported as texter while driving, and influence if at least one has been reported as the texter (refer Table 4 and Figure 9.) Only 21% of participants reported any family or peers as texter, indicating very low external influence.

Family Influence

30 Frequency 20

0 No Family Texter Family Texter

Figure 9. Peer/family text while driving.

To ascertain the influence of the education and other programs, it was important to know if participants have been previously exposed to educational, personal, PSAs or other programs related to texting while driving. Data on previous exposure to videos, lecture, article reading, PSA related to texting while driving along with any knowledge of texting while driving accident among friends or family was collected. A composite dichotomous variable for exposure was created: no exposure if none of the items were reported or exposure if at least one exposure item was reported (refer Table 4 and Figure 10.) Only 17% participants recalled any exposure at all to texting while driving related material.

Exposure to PSAs

30 Frequency

0 Low Exposure to PSAs High Exopsure to PSAs

Figure 10. Exposure to texting while driving education or experience.

Data on seven personality related traits was collected. These traits were geared towards other risks behavior. It included use of tobacco, use of alcohol, tendency to get into physical fights, ability to make friends, propensity to get angry and feeling of being stressed along with feeling socially accepted by peers. A composite dichotomous variable for risk was created: low risk if reported two of less items in the inventory of above traits or high risk if more than two are reported (refer Table 4 and Figure 11.) Approximately 38% participants are placed in the high risk based on the data collected. Personality Risk

Frequency 20

0 Low Risk High Risk

Figure 11. Risk profile of participants

Consistent with previous research (see section 2), most driver reported texting while driving. 82% reported that they do read text while driving and 59% send text while driving. They perceive these activities to be safe or very safe. 80% said that reading of text is safe while 70% said that sending text is safe. This data is presented below in Table 5 as well as in Figures 12 though 15.

Variable Levels Frequency Percentage Read Text While Driving Yes 59 81.94% No 13 18.06% Reply Text While Driving Yes 42 58.33% No 30 41.67% Very Perception of Reading Text Unsafe 4 5.56% Unsafe 11 15.28% No Effect 5 6.94% Safe 31 43.06% Very Safe 21 29.17% Very Perception of Sending Text Unsafe 4 5.56% 16

Unsafe 9 12.50% No Effect 9 12.50% Safe 25 34.72% Very Safe 25 34.72%

Table 5. Texting while driving behavior

Read Text While Driving

30 Frequency

0 Yes No

Figure 12. Read text messages while driving

Reply Text While Driving

20 Frequency

0 Yes No

Figure 13. Send text messages while driving

Perception of Safety of Reading Text While Driving

15 Frequency

0 Very Unsafe No Effect Safe Very Safe Unsafe

Figure 14. Perception of safety of reading text while driving

Perception of Safety of Sending Text While Driving

15 Frequency

0 Very Unsafe No Effect Safe Very Safe Unsafe

Figure 15. Perception of Safety of sending text while driving

To analyze the data, 8 different independent variables and four dependent variables were tested. The independent variables were Gender, Age, GPA, SAT, Urban/Rural, Family Peer Influence, Exposure to texting while driving material, and Risk profile. Four dependent variables were Read Text, Reply Text, Perception of Reading Text and Perception of Sending Text. 32 separate contingency tables were created and tested. Chi-square test was performed for each contingency table. All but five tests were insignificant. That is 27 tests had high p-values (between 0.22 -

0.96.) For example, two contingency tables, gender and read text, and gender and reply text, are discussed here. Among young driver, both male female have similar texting while driving behavior. Both male and female drivers reported similar numbers for reading and replying text messages. Results are summarized in Table 6 and presented Figures 16 and 18. Chi-square tests were performed for contingency tables for gender and “read text” as well as “send text.” Tests show that texting was independent of gender with p-values of 0.94 and 0.53.

Read Text Reply Text Yes No Yes No Female 82.22% 17.78% 55.56% 44.44% Male 81.48% 18.52% 62.96% 37.04%

Table 6: Gender vs. Read Text and Reply Text

Gender Vs Reading Text While Driving

40 35

30 25 20 15 Frequency 10 5 0 No Female Male Yes Read Text While Driving

Figure 16: Gender vs. Read Text

Gender Vs Reply Text While Driving

20 15 10

Frequency 5 0 No Female Male Yes Reply Text While Driving

Figure 17: Gender vs. Reply Text

Five contingency table results were significant. These are included in Table 7. Gender and perceptions of reading as well as gender and perception of sending text were significant. Female participants reported that they perceive these activities as more unsafe compared to male participants.

Ind. Variable Dep. Variable p-value Chi-Square Test Gender Perception of Safety Read Text 0.054 Gender Perception of Safety Send Text 0.003 SAT Read Text 0.084 Exposure Perception of Safety Read Text Less than 0.0001 Exposure Perception of Safety Send Text Less than 0.0001

Table 7. Significant pair of independent and dependent variables

Similarly, higher SAT scores participants were slight less likely to read text, however, there was no difference for SAT score and reply text variable. Most significant result was the relationship between previous exposure and perception of danger of texting while driving. Participants, which have been previously exposed to the texting while driving danger via some means, have significantly higher perception of danger of texting while driving compared to those who have not been exposed to such material. It must be noted that there was no significant difference between exposure and reading or replying text messages. That means, exposure increases awareness somewhat not necessarily change behavior of texting while driving. However, it is important to note that only 17% drivers (a sample size of 12) reported any exposure, thus, precludes researcher to make any broad claims.

Post treatment analysis shows that participants’ perceptions have changed. Increased awareness has increased understanding of the danger of texting while driving. Table 8 shows how mush treatment groups perceptions have changed both for reading text and sending text message. Reduction is value (-1) means that participant think moved from Safe or Very Safe perception to Unsafe or Very Unsafe perception.

Average Increase Average Increase in Perception on in Perception on Groups Reading Text Sending Text Control -1.22 Video-Treatment 1 -2.36 -2.50 Lecture-Treatment 2 -2.69 -2.44

Table 8. Increase the Perception of Danger of Reading or Sending Text While Driving

A single factor ANOVA test was performed to test if this increased awareness of danger of texting while driving is significant. The test showed that improvement was significant with p- value of 0.024 for perception of reading text and 0.091 for perception of sending text.

4. DISCUSSIONS

This study was planned to understand if texting while driving behavior can be modified by educational efforts. A sample of 72 young drivers was selected for the study. In the phase I of the research, young drivers revealed several issues in two focus groups. One of the major aspects which were revealed in the focus groups; is that only young drivers are increasing texting more while driving and they tend to see nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, peer pressure is so much that text conversations can’t be stopped. Peers and parents are also not setting good examples. Almost young participants in the focus groups showed over confidence in their ability to text while drive. However, admitting that that some of their peers are bad at the art of texting while driving.

Based on these inputs, two programs are designed: a selection of video for texting while driving and lecture by law enforcement on texting while driving. Two different survey instruments are administered on each participant, one prior to treatment of videos or lecture and other after the treatment.

Demographically sample represented an average age of 18.5 years with 60% females and 40% male drivers. Sample was 92% African-American hence race as a variable was not considered in the analysis. All the drivers were college freshmen and 70% reported coming from urban high schools. 68% of participants were in the GPA range of 3.1 or up. This means that conclusions could be somewhat restrictive in nature due to sampling frame.

Large number of driver 82% reported that they read text while driving somewhat smaller percentage, 60% revealed that they reply to texts while driving. More interestingly, they do not perceive these activities to be unsafe.

Even though, 80% of sample is texting (reading or sending or both), very small number reported that their friends, parents or sibling text. This seems at odds with finding giving such a high percentage of texting is reported by young drivers in the sample. It is possible that they are unwilling to include their friends and family to be counted as texter while driving. Furthermore, a very few participants reported any exposure to texting while driving PSAs or news items despite it is being requirement in many high schools for “driver education” training. Almost all participants (97%) considered themselves as very good driver who follow road rules and observe speed limits. This also is contrary to all available reports and studies.

Data did not reveal any connection between texting while driving by age or gender. Females and males are equally likely to text. 19-year olds are no different than 18-year olds. Insurance companies’ studies show that GPA and safe driving are related; however when it comes to texting while driving GPA makes no difference. Urban dwellers are as likely to text as non urban drivers. SAT scores showed a small relationship, but it might be due to smaller numbers in certain SAT score categories used in the research.

Parental or peer behaviors have no relationship with the texting outcome. Young drivers who reported that their peers and/or parents text while driving were equally likely to be texting while driving than those who reported no such influence. Similarly, risk traits showed no connection

21 to texting while driving behavior or perception. Previous exposure did not make any impact on the act of texting while driving.

Two factors have relationship with perception of danger of texting while driving: gender and previous exposure. Young female drivers are more likely to say texting (reading or sending) is more dangerous than their male counter parts. But that has not translated into less texting while driving by females. Previous exposure to texting while driving material has highest impact on the perception of danger of texting while driving. However, sample of drivers of previous experience of watching, reading, listening or witnessing danger of texting while driving was very small. Only 12 drivers reported such exposure. Furthermore, this exposure made no impact on behavior of texting while driving.

Post treatment data showed that treatments are important for increasing awareness. As both video and lecture group reported change in perception of danger of texting while driving. However, not even time has passed between the treatment and data collection hence longevity of effect could not be measured. Furthermore, very few drivers reported driving vehicles between treatment and survey administration. Sample was drawn from college freshmen who are not allowed to keep vehicle hence very few had chance to drive and to report on actual action of texting while driving.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was an attempt to understand the effect of educational and awareness programs in reducing the texting while driving among young drivers. There are well established research studies indicating that texting while among young driver is on increase and is increasingly contributing to more accidents and fatalities. Many states are making laws restricting texting while driving. However, law enforcement alone, if that is even possible, can solve this problem. We designed and tested two educational/awareness programs. Here are the major recommendations: a. Design more target programs for young drivers to make them aware danger of texting- while-driving.

b. Video exposure and lectures work equally well for increasing the perception of dangerous nature of the act of texting while driving.

c. Study long-term impact of such programs.

d. Reemphasize the educational programs so that perceptions can be turned into action of not texting while driving.

e. States should consider more educational and training requirements related to texting while driving for licensing young drivers.

Despite some significant results, this study had many clear limitations:

a. Study was restricted by the sampling frame. There was no racial diversity in the sample.

b. Instruments could be improved as there are inconsistencies in the responses by participants. For examples, 80% say they do texting while driving but only 21% know anyone who text while driving.

c. There must be more long-term study to understand how long the effect of the educational programs lasts.

d. Due to sampling restriction, very few participants cold report on driving behavior after the treatment due to campus living without automobile.

e. Sample was small to test so many different variables. The percentages in some of the categories were very low.

f. Larger sample is also needed to carry out more rigorous statistical analysis. That will establish stronger foundations for the findings.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank the Police Chief, City of Poquoson for making a lecture presentation to the participants.

7. REFERENCES

 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2009 Traffic Safety Culture Index. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation forTraffic Safety, 2009.

 Atchley, P. (2012). Stuck in the 70s: the role of social norms in distracted driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 48(September), 279 - 284.

 Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 134-142.

 Bayer, J., & Campbell, S. (2012). Texting while driving on automatic: Considering the frequency-independent side of habit. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2083 - 2090. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from the Science Direct database.

 Beanland, V., Fitzharris, M., & Young, K. (2012). Using in-depth data to access the role of driver inattention and driver distraction in crashes. Injury Prevention, 18(1), 234-325.

 Boyle, L., & Westlake, E. (2012). Perceptions of driver distraction among teenage drivers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(6), 644 -- 653.

 Braitman, K., Kirley, B., McCartt, A., & Chaudhary, N. (2008). Crashes of novice teenage

drivers: Characteristics and contributing factors. Journal of Saftey Research, 39(1), 47 -- 54.

 Drews, F., Yazdani, H., Godfrey, C., Cooper, J., & Strayer, D. (2009). Text messaging during simulated driving. Human Factors , 51(5), 762 -- 770.

 Foss, R., Goodwin, A., McCartt, A., & Hellinga, L. (2009). Short-term effects of a teenage driver cell phone restriction. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(3), 419 -- 424.

 Goodwin, A., O'Brien, N., & Foss, R. (2012). Effects of North Carolina's restriction on teenage driver cell phone use two years after implementation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 48, 363 -- 367.

 Hosking, S., Young, K., Regan, M., 2007. The effects of text messaging on young novice driver performance. In: Faulks, I.J., Regan, M., Stevenson, M., Brown, J., Porter, A., Irwin, J.D. (Eds.), Distracted driving. Australasian College of Road Safety, Sydney, NSW, pp. 155– 187.

 Jimenez, P., Bergasa, L., Daza, N., & Gonzalez, I. (2012). Gaze Fixation System for the Evaluation of Driver Distractions Induced by IVIS. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13(3), 1167-1178.

 Lansdown T. C. (2010). Frequency and Severity of In-Vehicle Distractions – A Self-Report Survey. Proceedings of Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference Gothenburg, Sweden. September 2009.

 Lee, S., Klauer, S., Olsen, E., Simons-Morton, B., Dingus, T., Ramsey, D., & Ouimet, M. C., 2008. Detection of road hazards by novice teen and experienced adult drivers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2078 (1), 26–32

 Lim, S., & Chi, J. (2013). Are cell phone laws in the U.S. effective in reducing fatal crashes? Transport Policy, 27, 158 -- 163.

 McCartt, A., Geary, L., 2004. Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld cell phone use. British Medical Journal 10 (1), 11.

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008. National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (DOT HS 811 059). http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811059.PDF.

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1, 2009. Distracted Driving. http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2, 2009. Driver Electronic Device Use in 2009 National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (DOT HS 811 059). http://www.distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Driver-Electronic-Device-Use-2009.pdf

 Nelson, E., Atchley, P., Little, T., 2009. The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (3), 438–444.

 Neyens, D., & Boyle, L. (2007). The effect of distractions on the crash types of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(1), 206 -- 212.

 Nichols, K.M. (2007). Hampton Roads Regional Safety Study: General Crash Data and Trend 2007 Update. http://www.hrpdc.org/Documents/Transportation/Gen_Crash_Data_Trends_07_Final.pdf

 Olson, R. L., Hanowski, R. J., Hickman, S. J. & Bocanegra J. (2009) Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/FMCSA-RRR-09- 042.pdf.

 Ranney, T.A., Driver Distraction: A Review of the Current State of Knowledge”. Transportation Research Center. Inc.: NHTSA. 2008.

 Redelmeier, D., & Tibshirani, R. (1997). Association between cellular - telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453 -- 458.

 Regan, M., 2006. Preventing traffic accidents by mobile phone users. The Medical Journal of Australia. 185(11/12) 628.

 Saqer, H., Visser, E., Strohl, J., & Parasuraman, R. (2012). 4. Distractions N’ Driving: video game simulation educates young drivers on the dangers of texting while driving. A Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, 41(1), 5877-5879.

 Vlingo Corporation, 2010. Vlingo’s Third Annual Comprehensive Report: Texting While Driving in America. http://www.vlingo.com/sites/default/files/TWDinAmerica.Vlingo.2010.pdf

 Walsh, S.P., White, K.M., Young, R.M., 2009. The phone connection: A qualitative exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use amongst Australian youth. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 19 (3), 225–240.

 Wilson, F., & Stimpson, J. (2010). Trends in fatalities from distracted driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008. American Journal of Public Health, 100(11), 2213 -- 2219.

 Young, K., Regan, M. & Hammer, M. (2003) Driver distraction: a review of the literature, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Report No. 206.

8. APPENDICES

Appendix: i

Summary of First Focus Group on Texting While Driving

Administrative Information Location: 101 Buckman Hall, Hampton University Date & Time: Nov 16, 2011@ 2:00 pm- 3:00 pm. Number of Participants: 16 Moderator: Sharad K. Maheshwari

Lead questions: Do you text while driving? Do you consider it safe? Why do you text?

Major themes of Discussions

Driver Behavior Living in the moment Over confidence Integral part of personality Time healer –accident but went back

Driver perceptions Can’t happen to me. Driving is freedom. Just about everything is dangerous, so is Texting while driving. I am good but other drivers are bad at Texting. Mastered texting while driving Nothing can happen to you/or this can’t happen to me Don’t think about it as it is every day event.

Social Pressure Conversation is going on, can’t quit. Information, I got have it. Living in the moment. Importance of conversation is more than the risk posed. Text must be answered. Casual conversations, it must continue.

Other Influencers Inconsistent in parenting. Peer pressure.

Perceived Risks Yes it is risky.

One must slow down. Texting not on freeway but OKAY on street. There are times phone must be put away. Because it is bad dangerous, not leant how to drive and text.

Technical Skills Tech in helps in typing by finishing words Good typing speed Short words are easy like “LOL”

Appendix: ii

Summary of Second Focus Group on Texting While Driving

Administrative Information Location: 204 Buckman Hall, Hampton University Date & Time: Nov 18, 2011 @ 2:00 pm- 3:00 pm. Number of Participants: 11 Moderator: Sharad K. Maheshwari

Lead questions: Do you text while driving? Do you consider it safe? Why do you text?

Major themes of Discussions

Driver Behavior Over rating themselves. Taking some chance.

Driver perceptions Over rating their own capabilities. Screen and other electronics are distraction as well while single texting out. Accidents are rare. Accidents happen without texting as well. Police can’t catch me easily. Don’t trust others with texting.

Social Pressure If a girl sends text I have to respond Conversation is going on, can’t quit. Information is time. You can’t quit some conversations.

Other Influencers Mom does it. Some texts are important and must be answered.

Perceived Risks Not texting while raining Texting only after knowing where you are. Check Speed limit Risk is there No texting in unknown areas Minimal “texter”

Technical Skills I am good at testing on my new phone I can answer in a blink on an eye

Law Enforcement Law is not clear There is no law education Police can’t enforce it

Appendix iii

TEXTING-WHILE-DRIVING SURVEY DESIGN Pre-Treatment Survey

Demographical Questions

1 Gender 2 Race 3 Age in Years 4 High School GPA (if you don't remember give an approximate number) 5 SAT(if you don't remember give an approximate number) 6 ACT(if you don't remember give an approximate number) 7 Your Home town is (where you attended high school)

Driving Habits Questions

8 Do you drive at home a motor vehicle? 9 What percentage (approximate) of your regular driving is on Freeways? 10 Do you consider yourself a safe driver? 11 Do you follow speed limits while driving most of the time (within 5-10 miles of posted sign may be considered okay)? 12 Do you generally follow traffic rules other then the speed limit (like stop sign, signaling, etc)? 13 When in High School, roughly how many miles you drove each day (if you don't remember give an approximate number)?

Cell Phone Questions

14 Do you own a cell phone? 15 Do you have an unlimited text message plan? 16 Do you text message using cell phone? 17 Approximately how many text message you SEND per day (in case you are not sure, give me a ballpark figure) 18 Approximately how many text message you RECIEVE per day (in case you are not sure, give me a ballpark figure)

Texting-While Driving Questions

19 Do you ever Read a text message while driving? 20 How often you Read a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- Always/Very Often, 2-Often, 3-Sometimes, 4-Rarely, 5-Seldom/Never)

21 Do you Reply to a text message while driving? 22 How often you Reply to a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- Always/Very Often, 2-Often, 3-Sometimes, 4-Rarely, 5-Seldom/Never) 23 Do you INITIATE text message conversation while driving? 24 How often you INITIATE the text message conversation? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- Always/Very Often, 2-Often, 3-Sometimes, 4-Rarely, 5-Seldom/Never) 25 Do you consider SENDING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 26 Do you consider READING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 27 Do you consider SENDING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafer, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe) 28 Do you consider READING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafer, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe)

Family and Friends Texting Habits Questions

29 Do you have older sibling/s? 30 If yes, do your sibling/s SEND "Text While Driving"? 31 If yes, do your sibling/s READ "Text While Driving"? 32 Does any of your parent SEND "Text While Driving"? 33 Does any of your parent READ "Text While Driving"? 34 Do your friends SEND "Text While Driving"? 35 Do your friends READ "Text While Driving"?

Self Assessment and Other Media Influencers Questions

36 Do you consider yourself a safe driver? 37 Do you think other drivers on the road are careless driver? 38 Do you know someone close (family member, schoolmate, acquaintance) who got hurt in a car accident? 39 Do you know someone close (family member, schoolmate, acquaintance) who got hurt in a car accident due to "TEXTING WHILE DRIVING" by any of the driver/s involved in the incident? 40 Have you ever seen an public service announcement/advertisement of the danger of "Texting While Driving" 41 Have you ever seen youtube or other video, TV program or short film on the danger of "Texting While Driving"? 42 Have you attended a talk/lecture/class on the danger of "Texting While Driving"?

43 Have you read an article on the danger of "Texting While Driving"?

Risky Behaviors Profile Questions

44 Have you ever used tobacco products? 45 Have you ever drank alcohol? 46 Have you ever got involved in a physical flight? 47 Do you think you have enough friends? 48 Do you get along with your friends easily? 49 Do you often feel stressed? 50 Do you get angry easily?

Appendix iv: Texting While Driving Survey Pre-Treatment

THERE ARE 50 QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY. PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS.

Question Choice1 Choice2 Choice3 Choice4 Choice5 Choice6 1 Gender Male Female

2 Race African-American White Asian Other

More_Than 3 Age in Years Less_Than_17 17 18 19 20 _20 High School GPA (if you Out of don't remember give an what 4 approximate number) GPA scale SAT (if you don't remember give an approximate 5 number) Total_All_3_Sections ACT (if you don't remember give an approximate 6 number) Composite Your home town is (where 7 you attended high school) City State Do you drive a motor 8 vehicle at home? Yes No What percentage (approximate) of your regular driving is on 9 Freeways? Less_than_25% 26-50% 51-75% more_than_75% Do you consider yourself a 10 safe driver? Yes No Do you follow speed limits most of the time while 11 driving (within 5-10 miles of Yes No

posted sign may be considered okay)?

Do you generally follow traffic rules other than the speed limit (like stop sign, traffic sign, traffic signal, 12 etc)? Yes No When in High School, roughly how many miles you drove each day (if you don't remember give an 13 approximate number)? Less_than__30 31-60 60-90 over-90 14 Do you own a cell phone? Yes No Do you have an unlimited 15 text message plan? Yes No Do you text message using 16 cell phone? Yes No Approximately how many text message you SEND per day (in case you are not sure, 17 give me a ballpark figure) less_than__25 26-50 51-75 76-100 over_100 Approximately how many text message you RECEIVE per day (in case you are not sure, give me a ballpark 18 figure) less_than__25 26-50 51-75 76-100 over_100 Do you ever Read a text 19 message while driving? Yes No How often you READ a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- Always/Very Often, 2- Often, 3-Sometimes, 4- 20 Rarely, 5-Seldom/Never) 1 2 3 4 5

Do you Reply to a text 21 message while driving? Yes No How often you REPLY to a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- Always/Very Often, 2- Often, 3-Sometimes, 4- 22 Rarely, 5-Seldom/Never) 1 2 3 4 5 Do you INITIATE text message conversation while 23 driving? Yes No

How often you INITIATE the text message conversation? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-Always/Very Often, 2-Often, 3- Sometimes, 4-Rarely, 5- 24 Seldom/Never) 1 2 3 4 5 Do you consider SENDING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-very unsafe, 2- unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 25 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1 2 3 4 5

Do you consider READING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-very unsafe, 2- unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 26 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1 2 3 4 5

Do you consider SENDING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5-comparatively very 27 safe) 1 2 3 4 5 Do you consider READING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5-comparatively very 28 safe) 1 2 3 4 5 29 Do you have older sibling/s? Yes No If yes to the previous question, does your older sibling/s SEND "Text While 30 Driving"? Yes No If yes to previous two questions, does your older sibling/s READ "Text While 31 Driving"? Yes No Does any of your parents SEND "Text While 32 Driving"? Yes No Does any of your parents READ "Text While 33 Driving"? Yes No Do your most of your friends SEND "Text While 34 Driving"? Yes No

Do your most of your friends READ "Text While 35 Driving"? Yes No Do you consider yourself a 36 safe driver? Yes No Do you think other drivers on the road are not as safe as 37 you are? Yes No Do you know someone close (family member, schoolmate, acquaintance, etc.) who got hurt in a car 38 accident? Yes No Do you know someone close (family member, schoolmate, acquaintance, etc.) who got hurt in a car accident due to "TEXTING WHILE DRIVING" by any of the driver/s involved in 39 the incident? Yes No Have you ever seen a public service announcement/advertisement of the danger of "Texting 40 While Driving"? Yes No Have you ever seen a video (YouTube, TV program, short film or any other video) on the danger of 41 "Texting While Driving"? Yes No

Have you attended a talk (in a class, at the school, at a community event, at a church event, or any other talk) on the danger of 42 "Texting While Driving"? Yes No Have you ever read an article (any kind) on the danger of "Texting While 43 Driving"? Yes No Have you ever used tobacco 44 products? Yes No Have you ever drank 45 alcohol? Yes No Have you ever got involved 46 in a physical flight? Yes No Do you think you have 47 enough friends? Yes No Do you get along with your 48 friends easily? Yes No 49 Do you often feel stressed? Yes No 50 Do you get angry easily? Yes No

Appendix v Post Survey Control Group THERE ARE 13 QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY. YOUR Question Choices RESPONSE

1 Have you driven car in the past two months (since Feb 2012?) Yes/No ONLY ANSWER IF YOU YES TO THE QUESTION 1 2 Did you READ any Text while Driving in the last two months? Yes/No 3 Did you SEND any Text while Driving in the last two months? Yes/No 4 Did you INITIATE any Text while Driving in the last two months? Yes/No ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDLESS OF YOU ANSWER TO THE QUESTION 1 Have you seen a public service announcement/advertisement on the danger of "Texting While 5 Driving" in last TWO MONTHS? Yes/No Have you seen a Television Program on the danger of "Texting While Driving" in last TWO 6 MONTHS? Yes/No Have you seen an Internet Video (YouTube, etc.) on the danger of "Texting While Driving" in 7 last TWO MONTHS? Yes/No

8 Have you attended a Lecture on the danger of "Texting While Driving" in last TWO MONTHS? Yes/No

9 Have you read an article on the danger of "Texting While Driving" in last TWO MONTHS? Yes/No Do you consider READING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- 10 very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-very 11 unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect of safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5

Do you consider READING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5- 12 comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4-slightly safer, 5- 13 comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5

Appendix vi Post Survey Treatment Group Lecture

THERE ARE 8 QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY. YOUR Question Choices RESPONSE 1 Have you driven car since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" last week? Yes/No ONLY ANSWER IF YOU YES TO THE QUESTION 1 Did you READ any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 2 last week? Yes/No Did you SEND any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 3 last week? Yes/No Did you INITIATE any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 4 last week? Yes/No ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDLESS OF YOU ANSWER TO THE QUESTION 1 Do you consider READING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1- 5 5; 1-very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- 6 very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect of safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider READING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4- 7 slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4- 8 slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5

Appendix vii Post Survey Treatment Group Video

THERE ARE 8 QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY. YOUR Question Choices RESPONSE 1 Have you driven car since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" last week? Yes/No ONLY ANSWER IF YOU YES TO THE QUESTION 1 Did you READ any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 2 last week? Yes/No Did you SEND any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 3 last week? Yes/No Did you INITIATE any Text while Driving since the lecture on the "Texting While Driving" 4 last week? Yes/No ANSWER FOLLOWING QUESTIONS REGARDLESS OF YOU ANSWER TO THE QUESTION 1 Do you consider READING a text messaging safe while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1- 5 5; 1-very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect of safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1- 6 very unsafe, 2-unsafe, 3-no effect on safety, 4-safe, 5-very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider READING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4- 7 slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5 Do you consider SENDING a text message safer than making a call on the cell phone while driving? (Answer on a scale of 1-5; 1-more unsafe, 2-slightly unsafe, 3-similar, 4- 8 slightly safer, 5-comparatively very safe) 1/2/3/4/5

Appendix viii Treatment 1-Video Education

Listen to the music, Please click on the image Enjoy the ride, But put your cell— phone on the side.

Ashili McLean Hampton University Sigma Beta Delta Chapter

Approx 2 Min

GET EDUCATED TEXT MESSAGING BAN Alaska Massachusetts Arkansas Michigan California Minnesota Nebraska Colorado New Hampshire Connecticut New Jersey Delaware New York District of Columbia North Carolina Georgia Oregon Rhode Island Guam Tennessee Illinois Utah Iowa Vermont Kansas Virginia Kentucky Washington Wisconsin Louisiana Wyoming Maryland

USE OF HANDHELD CELL LAW: Primary Law allows an officer PHONES BAN officer to ticket the driver for the offense related to cell phone use without any other traffic offense taking place. California Connecticut ACTION: Law prohibits all or certain types of drivers from Delaware using handheld cell phones while driving. District of Columbia LAW: Secondary Law allows an officer to give Maryland the driver an additional ticket for cell phone use New York as secondary violation if pulled over for another New Jersey primary offense. Oregon Virgin Islands ACTION: Law bans text messaging for all or certain types Washington of drivers. LAWS ON “CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING” VARIES IN EACH STATE.

VIRGINIA

• Ban on all cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for bus drivers (Primary law)

• Ban on all cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for novice drivers (Primary law)

• Ban on texting for all drivers (Secondary law; Primary law for bus drivers)

Note: Virginia defines “novice drivers” as all drivers under the age of 18.

2009 survey of National Safety Council (NSC) EVEN IN THE member companies:

WORKPLACE • 58% had a cell phone policy for employees • Of those, 40% noted that they COMPLETELY BANNED cell phone use while driving, primarily for reasons of “Employee Safety” and “Public Safety”

• Although most policies are enforced through an honor system, -43% of companies conduct parking lot observations -40% use driver records and traffic citations -10% conduct in-vehicle monitoring.

EFFECTS & STATE SAFETY

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found:

• 35% of drivers surveyed felt less safe on the road today then they did five years ago. 31% of those cited distracted driving as the reason.

• Information on distracted driving is a REQUIRED component of Driver Education in 18 states and D.C., and it is a question on the driver’s license test in 17 states and D.C.

• Motor vehicle crashes are THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH for teenagers in the United States. Teen drivers (between 16 and 19) are involved in fatal crashes at 4x the rate of adult drivers (25 to 69), per mile driven. Please click on the image Approx 2 min

INTERESTING FACTS 1. EVERY SECOND you look down to text while driving at 70MPH, you travel more than 100FT. That's the height of a 10 story building!

2. Using a cell phone while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions AS MUCH AS having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08%

3. “Distracted Driving” was Webster Dictionary’s word of the year in 2009.

REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES Pam Fischer of the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety says officers already write 10,000 tickets every month for violators of New Jersey's texting and cell phone bans.

Texting while driving, girl runs into house, police say

October 26, 2010 How It Works: Crystal Lake, Illinois SafeCell uses your phone's GPS function to alert you of applicable cell phone A 16-year-old has been charged after police laws, which vary by state, and also notifies you when you're entering a school said she drove her car into the attached zone. When it detects that you're driving over 5mph, it will disable the texting garage of a house while texting and and calling functions of your phone, per the laws of the state or jurisdiction driving. you're driving in. For text messages, drivers can elect for the app to auto- respond to messages, saying, "The person you are trying to reach is driving and will receive your message upon reaching their destination." For every 500 There were no injuries in the crash. The girl miles safely driven, users receive a $5 credit, redeemable at over 500 retail was charged with: outlets. Rewards are capped at $250 per year. • Failure to reduce speed to avoid a collision • Improper use of an electronic The app can also track driving patterns, creating a driving log for concerned communication device parents or employers whose children or employees use it.

BE RESPONSIBLE ON THE ROAD!

RESOURCES

• GeekSugar.com • Department of Transportation • Creator’s Syndicate • CTIA The Wireless Association Video Presentations • Distraction.gov • University of Utah • NWHerald.com

AAA Foundation for Safety ABC News Distraction Driving

Approx 2 Min Approx 5 min

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety PSA from State of Utah

Approx 4 Min Approx 10 min

Today Show Distracted Driving PSA University of Kentucky Coverage

Approx 8 Min Approx 4 Min

Appendix ix Treatment 2-Lecture

On April 12, 2012, City of Poquoson’s Police Chief Clifford T. Bowen made a presentation to treatment group s of the participants on the ‘dangers of texting while driving.’ All participants were part of the texting while driving study group. Mr. Bowen highlighted various aspects of texting while driving. He emphasized “Inattention Blindness" caused due to distraction and how it impairs drivers’ ability to maneuver an automobile. This lecture was approximately 50 minutes long and participants were given opportunity to ask questions for about 10 min. Several questions related to law and enforcement of the texting while driving statutes were raised by participants.

City of Poquoson’s Police Chief Mr. Clifford T. Bowen addressing the participants.

Appendix x Pre Survey Data

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12

Gen age Drive Percentage Self Follow Follow No. der Race _grp GPA SAT ACT State YesNo Freeway Safety Speed Rules 1 1 1 19 3.90 1,450 21 TX 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 19 3.00 1,450 NJ 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 18 3.10 1,580 SC 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1 19 3.56 1,400 26 FL 1 3 1 2 1 5 1 1 18 3.00 1,460 NY 2 1 2 2 2 6 2 1 18 2.70 19 IL 1 3 1 1 1 7 1 4 19 3.50 1,200 PA 1 2 1 1 1 8 1 1 18 3.30 1,550 24 FL 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 18 2.90 900 NC 1 1 2 2 1 10 1 1 18 3.40 1,500 GA 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 19 3.50 1,400 28 PA 1 2 1 1 1 12 1 1 19 3.70 20 MI 2 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 18 3.00 1,300 VA 1 1 2 1 1 14 2 1 19 2.90 1,350 NC 2 3 2 1 1 15 1 1 19 2.90 1,200 MD 1 3 1 1 1 16 2 1 20 3.10 1,550 CA 1 3 1 1 1 17 1 1 19 2.70 1,050 18 NY 1 2 1 1 1 18 1 4 19 3.20 1,200 VA 1 2 1 1 1 19 1 1 18 3.80 1,350 21 VA 1 2 1 1 1 20 1 1 18 2.30 1,300 HA 1 2 1 2 1 21 1 1 18 2.80 1,400 17 VA 1 2 1 1 1 22 1 1 19 3.80 1,400 CA 1 3 1 1 1 23 1 1 18 3.75 1,800 MD 1 2 1 1 1 24 1 1 18 3.57 1,390 DE 1 2 1 1 1 25 1 1 18 3.99 1,520 CT 1 3 1 1 1 26 1 1 19 2.90 23 WI 1 1 1 1 1 27 1 1 18 3.64 1,260 16 VA 1 2 1 1 1 28 2 1 18 3.70 24 MI 1 2 1 1 1 29 2 1 18 3.00 1,860 21 CA 1 3 1 1 1 30 1 1 18 3.20 1,380 VA 1 2 1 1 1 31 2 1 19 2.80 1,650 VA 1 2 1 1 1 32 2 2 22 3.50 18 NE 1 2 1 1 1 33 2 1 19 3.20 1,290 DC 1 3 1 1 1 34 1 1 18 3.55 1,900 26 CA 1 1 1 1 1 35 1 1 18 3.32 26 MI 1 2 1 1 1 36 2 1 18 3.30 1,300 19 AZ 1 1 1 1 1 37 1 1 18 3.20 1,400 NJ 2 2 1 1 1 38 2 1 18 3.20 1,145 GA 1 3 1 1 1 39 1 1 19 3.80 1,300 19 IL 1 4 1 1 1 40 2 1 18 3.45 1,490 NJ 2 1 1 1 1

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Gen age DriveY Percentage Self Follow Follow No. der Race _grp GPA SAT ACT State esNo Freeway Safety Speed Rules 41 2 1 19 3.50 1,300 19 NJ 2 1 1 1 1 42 1 1 18 3.60 1,500 WA 1 3 1 1 1 43 1 1 18 4.10 1,600 26 VA 1 2 1 1 1 44 2 1 18 3.00 1,700 GA 1 3 1 2 1 45 1 1 19 3.00 1,680 GA 1 2 1 1 1 46 2 1 18 3.50 19 VA 1 3 1 1 1 47 2 1 19 3.00 1,350 21 CA 1 3 1 1 1 48 1 1 18 3.68 1,600 23 CT 1 2 1 1 1 47 2 1 19 3.00 1,350 21 CA 1 3 1 1 1 48 1 1 18 3.68 1,600 23 CT 1 2 1 1 1 49 2 4 18 3.30 1,500 19 VA 1 1 1 1 1 50 1 1 19 4.10 1,710 MD 1 3 1 1 1 51 1 4 18 3.00 25 TN 1 4 1 1 1 52 1 1 19 3.30 17 TN 1 3 1 1 1 53 1 1 18 3.80 1,500 24 NC 1 3 1 1 1 54 1 1 18 3.90 1,600 21 VA 1 1 1 1 1 55 1 1 18 3.00 1,590 VA 1 2 1 1 1 56 1 1 19 3.30 19 OH 1 2 1 1 1 57 2 1 20 2.94 1,230 VA 1 2 1 1 1 58 1 1 18 3.77 1,600 23 PA 1 2 1 1 1 59 2 1 18 3.40 1,550 21 NY 1 1 1 1 1 60 1 1 18 3.40 1,300 22 OH 1 2 1 1 1 61 1 1 19 3.69 1,440 VA 1 2 1 1 1 62 1 1 19 3.56 1,890 29 VA 1 2 1 1 1 63 2 1 18 3.00 1,190 18 NJ 1 2 1 1 1 64 1 1 18 3.83 1,500 20 PA 1 2 1 1 1 65 1 4 19 3.80 1,680 28 MD 1 2 1 1 1 66 2 1 19 2.80 1,560 24 MD 1 2 1 1 1 67 2 1 19 3.30 20 IL 1 4 1 1 1 68 2 1 18 3.40 1,260 19 NY 1 2 1 1 1 69 1 1 18 3.14 1,600 MD 1 1 1 1 1 70 1 1 18 3.40 1,400 19 GA 1 2 1 1 1 71 2 1 20 2.80 1,470 VA 1 3 1 1 1 72 1 1 18 3.90 1,310 19 NC 1 2 1 1 1

Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23

Unlimit Use Driving Own ed Text NoText NoText Read Freq Reply Freq Initiate No. Miles Cell Mess Mess Send Rec WD RD WD Rep Conver 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 1 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 4 2 4 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 7 1 1 1 1 5 5 2 4 2 4 2 8 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 4 2 5 2 9 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 5 2 10 4 1 1 1 5 5 2 4 2 4 2 11 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 4 2 12 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 2 13 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 14 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 15 3 1 1 1 5 5 2 5 2 5 2 16 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 2 2 17 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 2 5 2 18 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 2 19 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 4 2 20 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 3 2 5 2 21 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 2 23 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 5 2 5 2 24 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 5 2 25 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 2 5 2 26 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 27 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 3 1 28 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 5 2 29 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 2 5 2 30 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 4 2 5 2 31 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 1 2 2 32 4 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 3 1 33 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 34 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 5 2 35 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 4 2 36 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 4 1 2 2 37 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 2 2 38 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 4 1 4 2 39 2 1 1 1 4 5 1 3 1 3 2 40 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 2 1 2 1

Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23

Unlimit Use Driving Own ed Text NoText NoText Read Freq Reply Freq Initiate No. Miles Cell Mess Mess Send Rec WD RD WD Rep Conver 41 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 5 2 5 2 42 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 3 1 4 2 43 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 4 2 44 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 5 2 5 2 45 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 4 2 46 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 47 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 48 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 4 2 49 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 50 2 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 51 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 4 2 52 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 4 2 53 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 54 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 2 2 55 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 3 2 56 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 2 5 2 57 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 2 5 2 58 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 59 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 5 2 60 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 5 2 5 2 61 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 4 2 5 2 62 2 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 2 63 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 64 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 3 1 65 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 3 1 4 2 66 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 5 2 5 2 67 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 68 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 2 5 2 69 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 70 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 71 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 72 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 4 2

Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34

Perce Perce Com Com Freq ption ption pare pare Sibling Sibling Friends Initia Send Read Send Read Sibling Send Read Parent Parent Text No. tion Text Text Call Call Older WD WD Send Read Send 1 3 2 2 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3 3 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 4 2 2 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 7 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 5 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 10 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 11 5 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 5 2 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 13 4 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 14 5 5 2 3 2 2 2 2 15 5 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 16 5 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 5 1 1 5 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 18 4 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 19 5 4 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 20 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 21 3 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 22 5 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 3 5 5 5 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 24 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 25 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 26 5 5 4 5 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 27 3 5 5 4 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 28 5 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 29 5 3 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 30 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 31 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 32 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 33 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 34 5 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 35 5 4 4 2 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 36 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 37 2 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 38 5 5 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 39 4 5 2 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 40 3 2 2 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1

Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34

Perce Perce Com Com Freq ption ption pare pare Sibling Sibling Friends Initia Send Read Send Read Sibling Send Read Parent Parent Text No. tion Text Text Call Call Older WD WD Send Read Send 41 5 5 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 42 5 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 43 5 5 5 3 5 2 1 2 2 2 44 5 4 2 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 45 5 4 4 5 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 46 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 47 4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 48 5 5 4 5 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 49 4 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 50 2 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 51 4 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 52 4 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 53 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 54 3 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 55 4 4 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 56 4 4 4 5 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 57 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 58 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 59 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 60 2 5 2 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 61 5 4 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 62 4 4 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 63 3 3 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 64 3 3 4 4 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 65 5 4 3 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 66 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 1 2 2 2 67 3 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 68 5 4 4 4 5 1 2 2 2 2 69 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 2 2 70 4 5 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 71 3 3 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 72 5 4 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Close Close Hurt Expose Friends Repeat Perception Hurt Car PubSer Text Self Safety Car Acc Ann Expose Expose Expose No. Read Safety Others Acc TWD TWD Vid Talk Read Tobacco 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 13 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 14 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 18 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 20 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 21 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 23 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 24 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 27 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 28 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 29 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 31 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 32 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 33 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 34 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 35 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 37 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 38 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 39 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 40 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q44 Close Hurt Expose Friends Repeat Perception Close Car PubSer Text Self Safety Hurt Acc Ann Expose Expose Expose No. Read Safety Others CarAcc TWD TWD Vid Talk Read Tobacco 41 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 42 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 43 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 44 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 45 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 46 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 47 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 48 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 49 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 50 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 51 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 52 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 53 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 54 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 55 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 56 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 57 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 58 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 59 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 60 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 61 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 62 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 63 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 64 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 65 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 66 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 67 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 68 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 69 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 70 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 71 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 72 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q50

No. Alcohol PhysicalFight EnoughFriends FriendsEasily Stress Anger 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 7 2 2 1 1 2 2 8 1 2 1 1 2 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 2 2 1 1 2 2 11 2 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 2 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 2 1 1 1 2 15 1 2 1 1 1 2 16 1 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 2 1 1 1 1 18 1 2 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 1 1 2 21 2 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 2 1 1 1 2 23 1 2 1 1 2 2 24 1 2 1 1 1 2 25 2 2 1 1 1 2 26 1 2 1 1 2 2 27 1 2 2 1 1 2 28 1 2 1 1 2 2 29 2 1 1 1 2 1 30 1 2 1 1 1 2 31 1 1 1 1 2 2 32 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 2 1 1 1 2 2 34 2 2 2 1 2 1 35 1 2 1 1 1 2 36 1 1 1 1 1 1 37 1 2 1 1 1 2 38 1 1 1 1 2 2 39 2 2 1 1 2 2 40 1 1 1 1 2 2

Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q50

No. Alcohol PhysicalFight EnoughFriends FriendsEasily Stress Anger 41 1 2 1 1 1 2 42 1 2 2 1 2 2 43 2 2 1 1 2 2 44 1 1 1 1 2 2 45 1 2 1 1 2 2 46 2 1 1 1 2 1 47 1 1 1 1 2 2 48 1 2 2 2 1 2 49 2 2 1 1 2 2 50 1 2 1 1 1 2 51 2 2 1 1 1 2 52 1 2 1 1 2 1 53 1 1 1 1 1 2 54 1 2 1 1 2 2 55 1 1 1 1 2 2 56 1 2 1 1 2 2 57 2 1 1 1 2 2 58 1 2 1 1 2 1 59 1 2 1 1 2 2 60 2 2 1 1 1 1 61 1 2 1 1 2 2 62 1 2 1 1 1 1 63 1 2 2 1 2 2 64 2 1 1 1 2 2 65 1 1 1 1 2 2 66 1 1 1 1 1 1 67 1 1 1 1 1 2 68 1 1 1 1 1 2 69 1 2 1 1 1 2 70 2 1 1 1 2 2 71 1 1 1 1 2 2 72 1 1 1 1 1 2

Appendix xi Post Survey Data Control Group

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Expose Consider Consider Compare Compare Pub Expose Expose Expose Expose Drive Read Send Initiate Read Send Read Send SerAnn TV Vid Lec Art No. After1 WD1 WD1 WD1 SafeWD1 SafeWD1 Call1 Call1 TWD1 TWD1 TWD1 TWD1 TWD1 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3 1.00 1 1 1 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 4 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 2.00 5.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 6 1.00 2 2 2 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 2 2 2 2.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 8 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 9 1.00 1 1 2 4.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 10 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 1.00 1 1 2 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 12 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 13 1.00 1 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 14 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 15 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 17 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 18 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Appendix xii Post Survey Data Treatment 1 Video

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Consider Drive Read Send Initiate ReadSafe Consider Compare Compare No. After1 WD1 WD1 WD1 WD1 SendSafeWD1 ReadCall1 SendCall1 1 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 3 1.00 1 1 2 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 4 1.00 1 1 2 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5 1.00 2 2 2 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 6 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 7 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 9 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 10 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 12 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 13 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 14 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 15 1.00 1 1 1 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 16 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 17 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 18 1.00 1 1 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1.00 1 1 2 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 22 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

Appendix xiii Post Survey Data Treatment 2 Lecture

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Compar Compa Consider e re DriveAft ReadW SendW InitiateW ReadSafe ConsiderSendSaf ReadC SendC No. er1 D1 D1 D1 WD1 eWD1 all1 all1 1 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 3 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 8 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 9 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 12 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 14 1.00 1 1 1 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 15 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 16 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 17 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 18 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 19 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 21 1.00 1 2 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 23 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 25 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 26 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 27 2.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 28 1.00 2 2 2 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 29 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 30 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 31 1.00 1 2 2 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 32 1.00 2 2 1 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

Appendix xiv Code Book Pre Survey

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Gender Race Age_grp GPA SAT ACT State Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Value Value Value Value Female 1 African-American 1 Less_Than_17 1 Male 2 White 2 17 2 Asian 3 18 3 Other 4 19 4 20 5 More_Than_20 6

Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 DriveYesNo PercentageFeeway SelfSafety FollowSpeed FollowRules Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Less_than_25% 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 26-50% 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 51-75% 3 more_than_75% 4

Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 DrivingMiles OwnCell UnlimitedMess UseTextMess NoTextSend Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Less_than_30 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 less_than_25 1 31-60 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 26-50 2 60-90 3 51-75 3 over-90 4 76-100 4 over_100 5

Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 NoTextRec ReadWD FreqRD ReplyWD FreqRep Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Always/ Very Always/ Very less_than_25 1 Yes 1 Often 1 Yes 1 Often 1

26-50 2 No 2 Often 2 No 2 Often 2 51-75 3 Sometimes 3 Sometimes 3 76-100 4 Rarely 4 Rarely 4 Seldom/ Seldom/ Never 5 Never 5

Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 InitiateConver FreqInitiation PerceptionSendText PerceptionReadText CompareSendCall Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Always/ Very Very Yes 1 Often 1 Very Unsafe 1 Unsafe 1 More Unsafe 1 Slightly No 2 Often 2 Unsafe 2 Unsafe 2 Unsafe 2 No Effect on No Effect Sometimes 3 Safety 3 on Safety 3 Similar 3 Rarely 4 Safe 4 Safe 4 Slightly Safe 4 Comparatively Seldom/ Never 5 Very Safe 5 Very Safe 5 very unsafe 5

Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 CompareReadCall SiblingOlder SiblingSendWD SiblingReadWD ParentSend Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code More Unsafe 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Slightly Unsafe 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 Similar 3 Slightly Safe 4 Comparatively very unsafe 5

Q33 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 ParentRead FriendsTextSend FriendsTextRead RepeatSelfSafety PerceptionSafetyOthers Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2

Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42 CloseHurtCarAcc CloseHurtCarAccTWD ExposePubSerAnnTWD ExposeVid ExposeTalk Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2

Q43 Q44 Q45 Q46 Q47 ExposeRead Tobacco Alcohol PhysicalFight EnoughFriends Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2

Q48 Q49 Q50 FriendsEasily Stress Anger Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 No 2 No 2

Appendix xv Code Book Post Survey

Control Group Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 DriveAfter1 ReadWD1 SendWD1 InitiateWD1 ExposePubSerAnnTWD1 Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2

Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 ExposeTVTWD1 ExposeVidTWD1 ExposeLecTWD1 ExposeArtTWD1 Consider ReadSafeWD1 Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Very Unsafe 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 Unsafe 2 No Effect on Safety 3 Safe 4 Very Safe 5

Q11 Q12 Q13 ConsiderSendSafeWD1 Compare ReadCall1 Compare SendCall1 Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Very Unsafe 1 More Unsafe 1 More Unsafe 1 Unsafe 2 Slightly Unsafe 2 Slightly Unsafe 2 No Effect on Safety 3 Similar 3 Similar 3 Safe 4 Slightly Safe 4 Slightly Safe 4 Comparatively Comparatively Very Safe 5 very unsafe 5 very unsafe 5

Treatment Group 1 or 2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

DriveAfter1 ReadWD1 SendWD1 InitiateWD1 Consider ReadSafeWD1 Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Very Unsafe 1 No 2 No 2 No 2 No 2 Unsafe 2 No Effect on Safety 3 Safe 4 Very Safe 5

Q6 Q7 Q8

ConsiderSendSafeWD1 Compare ReadCall1 Compare SendCall1 Choice Code Choice Code Choice Code Very Unsafe 1 More Unsafe 1 More Unsafe 1 Unsafe 2 Slightly Unsafe 2 Slightly Unsafe 2 No Effect on Safety 3 Similar 3 Similar 3 Safe 4 Slightly Safe 4 Slightly Safe 4 Comparatively Comparatively Very Safe 5 very unsafe 5 very unsafe 5