Txt240ppr

Running Head: Texting and Driving
Texting and Driving
John Webster Amory
Health 2400_002
Clemson University

Texting and Driving 2
HEALTH BEHAVIOR
Texting while driving is a growing issue in the United States that many teens and
parents disregard because they feel their skills overcome its inherent risk. Cell phone use,
primarily texting, is the considerable force behind this rise in distracted driving (Madden
and Rainie, 2010). With the number of people being injured as a result of this behavior
rising by the thousands each year, this clearly is a matter to be handled with the utmost
seriousness. Even with texting and driving injury rates skyrocketing, however, citizens
across America continue to engage in this dangerous activity (NHTSA, 2011). Distracted
driving has no age discretion, and the issue at hand lies behind our entire society’s
increasing reliance on technology paired with its’ fear of being out of the loop; even for
the duration of a short drive. The aim of this article is to uncover the facts behind texting
while driving, reveal why our society continues to engage in the activity despite the
salient risks, and to offer up solutions that curb the number of distracted driving injuries
and fatalities, ultimately making America’s roads safer.
STATISTICS
Among the teenage and college age population, the prevalence of texting while
driving is tremendous (NHTSA, 2011). In fact, 59% of the millennial generation readily
stated that they engage in texting and driving (Madden and Rainie, 2010). This
stratospheric numbers translates to the sobering fact that our most inexperienced drivers
are engrossing themselves in an activity that diverts their attention away for a minimum
of five seconds at a time. (NHTSA, 2011). According to Transportation Secretary Ray
LaHood, “At 55 miles per hour, this means that the driver is travelling the length of a
football field, including end zones, without looking at the road” (Tel, 2010). While it is
common knowledge that teenagers are the primary offenders of distracted driving, the
number of adults who engage their cell phones behind the wheel is alarming. According
to a study done by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, approximately 47% of
adult drivers openly admitted to texting while driving (Madden and Rainie, 2010). Quite
possibly the most worrying figure, however, is that the NHTSA states that there are over
800,000 vehicles being piloted by drivers using their cell phones “at any given moment
during daylight hours” (NHTSA, 2011). That equates to vehicles being blindly piloted

nearly 11,000 miles every second on US roads, causing over 1.6 million accidents every
year (National Safety Council, 2010).
GRAPH 1: Distracted Driving Crash Data by Year
HEALTH OUTCOMES
When a driver chooses to engage in texting while operating a motor vehicle, their
likelihood of being involved in an accident increases 23 times over (Tel, 2010). That
stratospheric escalation equates to 28% of all crashes being attributed to distracted
driving (Lane, 2010). From these accidents stem an estimated 421,000 people being
injured as a result of distracted driving last year alone (Naylor, 2013). Furthermore, in
2011, there were over 3,300 reported fatalities being attributed to distracted driving
(NHTSA, 2011). Car accident injuries can have negative effects on one’s social, physical,
and even psychological health. According to a study done by the International Institute
for Science, Technology, and Education, the driver or passengers involved in the accident
can suffer from depression stemming from guilt (Jabali et al, 2013). Often times with
depression come a decline in one’s family life, social life, physical activity, and even

sleeping habits, leading to a general condition of malaise (American Psychological
Association, 2014). In extreme cases where there are serious injuries or there is loss of
life, posttraumatic stress disorder often follows, plaguing the effected for years down the
road (NIMH, 2012). It is essential that people think beyond themselves before looking
down at their phones, for the potential negative health outcomes are grave.
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2020
Healthy People 2020 recognizes the need to reduce motor vehicle accidents and
traffic fatalities due to distracted driving through its goal of violence and injury
prevention. It specifically targets the issue of texting while driving through objectives
IVP-13 and IVP-14. The first objective, IVP-13, zeroes in on reducing motor vehicle
crash-related deaths per 100,000 population and per 100 million miles travelled.
Objective number two, IVP-14, focuses on reducing non-fatal motor vehicle crash-related
injuries. By educating the population with the Fatality Analysis Reports from Healthy
People 20/20, hopefully the dangers behind texting and driving can be revealed,
ultimately encouraging people to discontinue cell phone use while piloting a motor
vehicle.
INTRAPERSONAL FACTORS
Texting and driving is a behavior that is heavily influenced by many intrapersonal
factors. Intrapersonal factors are elements within an individual, such as attitudes, values,
beliefs, socioeconomic status, knowledge, or even psychological characteristics that are
shown to influence or drive a person to behave in a particular way. An individual’s
perception on their ability to operate their cellular device plays a huge role in one’s
propensity to engage in the behavior. According to a Translational Research for Injury
Prevention study, participants who were comfortable using their cellphones significantly
more likely to drive distracted (Stavrinos, 2009). Furthermore, a study performed by the
NHTSA found that 25% of drivers, particularly teens and younger drivers, were of the
perception that using a cellular device while driving has zero effect on their driving
performance. Socioeconomic status also plays a role into perception, with the NHTSA
report stating that those with the lowest income are most likely to believe that texting
while driving does not impact their ability to drive safely and responsibly. Moreover, as
the income of an individual increases, the likelihood of an individual to drive distracted is

shown to decrease (NHTSA, 2011). Age is another intrapersonal factor that can drive
one’s tendency to drive distracted. The older a driver is, the less likely they are to text
and drive. (Issar, Kadakia, Tsahkis, et al, 2013). This is because the older generations
have less technical skill and lower exposure to the use of this technology. Older people
are much less likely to drive distracted because they place a higher value on safety than
on communication with others (Stravinos, 2009). Teens and millennials, on the other
hand, are more inclined to engage in the behavior due to the fact they feel more
comfortable, and are generally more frequent users of cell phones (Atchley, Atwood,
Boulton, 2011). Additionally, teens are of the attitude that they are invincible, making
them more likely to engross themselves in their phones, disregarding the dangers of being
distracted on the road. Another intrapersonal factor that specifically plays into younger
drivers’ penchant to text and drive is the high value the generation places on being in
contact with friends (Chaudhary, Cosgrove, Tison, 2011). An individual’s knowledge
towards the dangers of and regulations placed on distracted driving, however, worryingly
plays a small role in reducing the proclivity to drive distracted. In a Massachusetts study,
79.3% of the polled population was knowledgeable of a new law banning cell phone use
while operating a motor vehicle. Only a paltry 22% stated that they would actually follow
the law (Savitz, 2013). Even with solidified knowledge of the law and the danger these
rules are trying to protect the population from, one’s attitude towards texting while
driving trumps facts and statistics. Furthermore, 95.7% of drivers are of the opinion that
texting while driving is a serious danger and impacts highway safety, and 94.4% believed
that it was unacceptable for motorists to text and drive. Yet of those polled, 34.6% of
people do not act on their beliefs and openly admitted to sending emails and texting while
on the road (Arnold, Hamilton, Tefft, 2013). Overall, the intrapersonal level in the health
belief model has major implications for predicting how drivers are going to act behind the
wheel.
INTERPERSONAL FACTORS
Factors that push one to text while driving a vehicle also fall onto the interpersonal level.
The sphere of interpersonal factors largely deals with influences regarding one’s social
support systems and the subsequent interactions the individual has with them. Family,
friends, work groups, specific clubs, and even affiliations with doctors all are categorized

within interpersonal factors. Specific behaviors or attitudes that are held by the social
networks and groups that an individual is associated with tend to influence and drive a
specific behavior.
In many instances, the behavior of texting while driving is a learned behavior by
observation of one’s family members. In fact, 69% of teens that text and drive have
parents or guardians that readily engage in the distracted behavior as well. Furthermore,
teens have been shown to feel inclined to respond to a text message from a parent that is
received while they are driving. To reduce instances of this, parents should refrain from
texting their children while they are on the road (NHTSA, 2011). Family, however, is
also an interpersonal factor that can greatly reduce, or even eliminate the behavior of
texting while driving. Having parents discuss the dangers and hazards that are inherent
with texting and driving with their children can discourage the behavior. To drive the
point home further with young drivers, having a physician educate the driver on the
associated risks can also reduce the desire to drive distracted (Lee, Champagne,
Francescutti, 2013).
Friend groups are one of the most direct interpersonal factors that drive the
behavior to text while operating a motor vehicle. The popularity of using texting as a
means of instant and constant communication has been growing significantly as our
society’s reliance on technology increases. Now more than ever, individuals are ever so
inclined to always be in contact with their friend groups to keep in the loop (Liao and
Wan, 2009). Individuals whose social groups are mainly maintained over the Internet,
cellphone, and other digital mediums are more likely to engage in texting while driving
(Grellhesl and Punyanunt-Carter, 2012). Alarmingly, teenage drivers are even more
likely to engage in distracted driving when they have their friends in the car, multiplying
the number of individuals at risk by many factors (Ginsburg et al, 2008). Unsurprisingly,
in an Accident Analysis & Prevention study, individuals are most likely to text while
driving if the text messages are being sent to, or involve their significant other (Atchley et
al, 2011).

ORGANIZATIONAL, SOCIAL, COMMUNITY, & ENVIORNMENT FACTORS
While interpersonal level factors play an important role in behavioral
determination, there are more microenvironment spheres of influence that are important
to consider. One’s proclivity to engage in the behavior of texting while driving can also
be influenced by organizational, community, environmental, and policy factors.
Specific organizations, such as the Distracted Driving Foundation, Teens Against
Distracted Driving, The Safe Texting Campaign, Text Free Driving, The AAA
foundation for Traffic Safety, and hundreds more are geared towards reducing texting
and driving. These organizations raise awareness and educate drivers on just how
dangerous the behavior is to themselves and the road users around them, discouraging
one from using their cellphone on the road. Furthermore, becoming active in these
organizations gives drivers pointers on alternative ways to disengage in the behavior. One
specific method the Distracted Driving Foundation offers up is to set up an autoreply for
texts while in the car. This way the driver is less inclined to feel the need to respond to a
message, lest they be rude (Distracted Driving Foundation, 2013). Additionally, AT&T
offers a free app called AT&T DriveMode, which disables phone calls, texting, and web
use for drivers when they are in the car and the vehicle is in motion (AT&T, 2014). By
making education, awareness, and technology readily available to the population,
organizations make a sizeable impact on behavioral determination.
Communities and the corresponding relationships they have with organizations,
along with one’s built physical environment are more important factors that are related to
the behavior of texting and driving. Local areas can support organizations’ desires to
reduce the number of distracted drivers on the road. AT&T’s It Can Wait simulator is a
virtual reality simulator that educates participants on how hard it really is to text and
drive. The company makes its showcases on the behavior a community wide event,
encouraging everyone in the area to participate. This raises public awareness and
increases education on the matter in a way that is accessible to all (AT&T, 2014).
Advertisements aired on local television stations or pasted up on billboards also are
mechanisms that are used to reduce texting while driving. These advertisements can
target specific population groups, such as teens, to further strengthen the impact they
have on lessening the prevalence rate of this behavior. Churches and schools also play a

community level role in texting while driving behavior. Having speakers come to one’s
place of worship or learning environment to share personal stories about the dangers of
the behavior can greatly reduce the prevalence of the behavior within that group. The End
Distracted Driving campaign, commonly known as the EndDD campaign, does just that,
with hundreds of professionals across North America visiting community level
organizations and bringing about change in the area (EndDD.org, 2014).
While the above multilevel influencing factors undoubtedly modify behavior by
raising awareness through education, advertisements, and activities, it is public policy
that enforces and ultimately draws the line on what behaviors are acceptable in society.
According to distraction.gov, “41 States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the U.S.
Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers” (NHTSA, 2011). This means that
across the majority of the United States, drivers are breaking the law if they are texting
and driving. In fact there are just three states, with South Carolina being one of them,
which have no bans on any form of distracted driving. When there are laws against a
specific behavior, one’s tendency to engage in the behavior decreases. Officers are able
to enforce the law by giving out costly tickets to those who are caught texting and
driving, decreasing the cost-benefit ratio of texting while driving. The law of economics
applies here: by making the perceived costs of texting while driving higher than the
perceived benefits, there is little to no rationale behind doing so. Overall, public policies,
and enforcing them as such, are strong factors that shape behavior (NHTSA, 2011).
INFLUENTIAL FACTORS
There are a myriad of factors that influence and ultimately drive the behavior of
texting while driving. These influences are organized into the groupings of predisposing
factors, enabling factors, and reinforcing factors. Each group inherently influences the
behavior of texting while driving in a fundamentally different way. Predisposing factors
are at foundation of a behavior and often times play a role in influence before the
behavior is even seen in an individual. Examples of predisposing factors are a culture’s
normative beliefs, perceptions, or even one’s values, attitudes, and beliefs. Enabling
factors are what begin to drive and enable one to act in a specific way and revolve around
accessibility, barriers to entry, and one’s particular knowledge or skill. Reinforcing

factors perpetuate one’s propensity to continue performing a behavior by providing
positive feedback and rewards for behaving in a particular manner.
Predisposing Factors
1) The Socioeconomic status of an individual is correlated with texting while driving
as the lowest income are the most likely to believe that texting while driving does
not impact their ability to drive safely and responsibly (NHTSA, 2011).
2) Teens and younger drivers were of the perception that using a cellular device
while driving has zero effect on their driving performance (NHTSA, 2011).
3) As the income of an individual increases, the likelihood of an individual to drive
distracted is shown to decrease (NHTSA, 2011).
4) An individual’s knowledge towards the dangers of and regulations placed on
distracted driving plays a small role in reducing the proclivity to drive distracted
(Savitz, 2013).
5) Drivers who are of the opinion that texting while driving is a serious danger and
impacts highway safety are less likely to engage in the behavior (Arnold,
Hamilton, Tefft, 2013).
6) The older a driver is, the less likely they are to text and drive because older
generations have less technical skill and lower exposure to the use of technology
(Stravinos, 2009).
7) Older people are much less likely to drive distracted because they place a higher
value on safety than on the reward of communication with others (Stravinos,
2009).
8) Young drivers penchant to text and drive is driven by the reward the generation
receives by being in constant contact with friends (Tison, Chaudhary, Cosgrove,
2011).
Enabling Factors
1) An individual’s ability to operate their cellular device plays a huge role in one’s
propensity to engage in the behavior as individuals who are skilled in using their
cellphones were found to be significantly more likely to drive distracted
(Stavrinos, 2009).

2) Parental discussion about the dangers and hazards that are inherent with texting
and driving with their children discourages the behavior (Lee, Champagne,
Francescutti, 2013).
3) Public policy enforces and ultimately draws the line on texting while driving
being unacceptable in society (NHTSA, 2011).
4) Having a physician educate the driver on the associated risks can also reduce the
desire to drive distracted (Lee et al, 2013).
5) Officers enforcing the law by giving out costly tickets to those who are caught
texting and driving, decrease the cost-benefit ratio of texting while driving (AAA
Foundation, 2013).
Reinforcing Factors
1) Having teens sign a contract stating their driving privileges will be taken away if
they text and drive eliminates the reward of texting while driving (AAA
Foundation, 2013).
2) Individuals are more likely to stop texting while driving if a friend in the vehicle
with them tells them the behavior is making them uncomfortable
(TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).
3) Encouragement from friends in the vehicle increase the likelihood of one to
engage in distracted driving; multiplying the number of individuals at risk by
many factors (Ginsburg et al, 2008).
4) Teens that have parents or guardians that readily engage in texting while driving
tend to participate in the distracted behavior as well (NHTSA, 2011).
5) Individuals whose social groups are mainly maintained over the Internet,
cellphone, and other digital mediums are more likely to engage in texting while
driving (Grellhesl and Punyanunt-Carter, 2012).
6) Joining certain groups or clubs that are openly against dangerous behavior such as
texting while driving drastically reduce participant’s likelihood to engage in the
behavior (TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).
7) Individuals are most likely to text while driving if the text messages are being sent
to, or involve their significant other (Atchley et al, 2011).

Analysis of Predisposing Factors
Unsurprisingly, predisposing factors play a large role in behavioral determination.
It is very important to nip the behavior at the bud before there is an actual occurrence.
Therefore, having physicians drill the dangers of the behavior into a child’s head before
they even begin driving greatly reduces the chance of them ever texting while driving
(Lee et al, 2013). Younger drivers have been exposed to technology for almost their
entire lives, which increases their likelihood to use a cell phone for texting while on the
road simply because cell phones are a regular part of their life. Additionally, younger
drivers are usually in a lower socioeconomic class, which has shown to be directly
correlated with one’s prospect of engaging in the behavior (NHTSA, 2011). While one
may be knowledgeable on the laws and regulations put in place to reduce texting and
driving, it is the individual’s actual beliefs and opinions that associate with actual
reductions in texting while driving (Arnold et al, 2013; Savitz, 2013).
Analysis of Enabling Factors
In regards to enabling factors, one’s technical skill plays a large role in
determining how likely they are to text while driving. With older generations, this
technology is difficult to use which makes them less likely to text in the first place. With
the young generations, however, the higher technological fluency masks the obvious
dangers of texting while driving. Therefore younger generations are more likely to text
while driving (Stravinos, 2009). Building on this, when teenagers see their parents texting
while driving they, in turn, are also more likely to do so. This is because parental
behavior facilitates and shows a child what is allowed. By not engaging in the behavior,
along with having open discussion with a child about texting while driving, the
propensity to text while driving is greatly reduced (Lee, et al, 2013). Individuals who
largely maintain relationships over social networks or on the Internet are more likely to
text while driving, especially if that relationship is with a significant other (Grellhesl and
Punyanunt-Carter, 2012; Atchley et al, 2011). Ultimately, however, one’s behavior is
most influenced by social groups they are in, and the laws that surround their community
(NHTSA,2011; TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013).

Analysis of Reinforcing Factors
With reinforcing factors, the main driver behind this sphere of influence is the
reward for engaging in the behavior. With elderly drivers, the reward of safety trumps all,
meaning the reward of socialization while driving takes the backseat. Younger drivers
however are centrically focused on safety, meaning that they place a much higher reward
on being able to be connected with the world around them at all times (Stravinos, 2009;
Tison et al, 2011). Parents can reduce the reward of texting while driving by contractually
revoking driving privileges if their teens are engaging in the behavior (AAA Foundation,
2013). Officers of the law also reduce the reward of texting while driving by making the
financial and legal risk of doing high (distraction.gov, 2014). Despite all of this, social
influences have a large impact on behavior, and the difference between a distracted
driving accident and a safe arrival can oftentimes be determined by the influence the
passengers are exerting on a driver (TheDrivingSafetyClub, 2013; Ginsburg et al., 2008).
Model Graphic: The 4 P’s of Influence
Perception
-Percieved dangers,
skills, & norms
-Self-Efficacy
Peers
-Peer Norms
-Peer Pressure
Policy
-Laws& Enforcement
-Punishment
Place
-Environment
-Education
-Community
-Family
-SES

HEALTH BEHAVIOR THEORIES
Analyzing health behavior theories and choosing a model relevant to a specific
behavior is an important method of implementing change in society. These models have a
proven track record, and act as outlets through which complex behavior change processes
are simplified, organized, and presented in a concise manner. Furthermore, theory acts a
predictor of human behavior, allowing effective intervention methods to be implemented
on the primary prevention level (Theory at a Glance, 2005). In the realm of the behavior
of texting while driving, The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value model (SEEV),
The Multiple-Resource Model, and The Theory of Planned Behavior play a role in
changing this behavior at the intrapersonal level.
The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value Model: SEEV
In the book, Driver Distraction, by Michael A, Regan, John D. Lee, and Kristie L.
Young, the SEEV model is used to analyze how texting while driving drastically reduces
one’s ability to react to the environment around them. In the study it was discovered that
nearly a quarter of accidents are caused by distracted behaviors. Furthermore, per the
SEEV theory, there are a multitude of factors that influence the behavior with varying
degrees of severity. These include factors such biological attraction to objects such as
phones, social roles, skill, and human capacity to multi-task. The study struggled to
develop an intervention and ultimately concluded that, “at best, driver distraction can be
effectively managed” (Lee, Regan, and Young, 2008).
The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value Model aims to break down how the
eyes, brain, and conscious work together to allocate visual attentiveness towards a given
task at hand. The term salience refers to one’s attentiveness towards stimuli that stand out
from the rest of the background environment such as street signs, stoplights, and
emergency vehicles (Lee et al, 2008). When a driver is texting, their visual attention is
turned away from the road, and thus away from the bold visual aids that are part of our
highway system. Distraction from these salient elements hinders one’s ability to respond
to the ever-changing stimuli on our roadways, increasing the danger to themselves and
road users around them (NHTSA, 2011). Effort is a construct that outlines the strain
required by the brain and eyes to constantly adjust between a small phone screen and the
environment beyond the windshield as a driver engages in texting while driving. Due the

large distance discrepancy between a phone in ones hand and a vehicle one hundred
meters up the road, the brain and eyes are forced to make continual adjustments. This
process requires a considerable amount of mental capacity and consequently competes
with the capacity of the brain to process environmental stimuli. Because of this the brain
may not pick up on roadway hazards or dangerous situations, increasing the likelihood of
an accident. Expectancy refers to the way in which drivers observe the road. As one
drives, and gains experience driving, the eyes are trained to look out for certain risks on
the road. When a driver is looking at and using a cellular device inside the vehicle,
however, their ability to pick out potentially dangerous situations is hindered.
Furthermore, the eye becomes less trained on detecting hazards and reacting
appropriately as time goes on. Finally, value is the construct that analyzes how our brain
prioritizes, or places value on, certain stimuli and processes. There is little danger when
texting at a stoplight may make a driver slow to react to a green light. The issue comes
into play when our value placed on texting is higher than the value put on responding to
an emergency situation on the road.
By breaking down this model into its respective constructs, one can observe how
an individual’s limited visual attentiveness is further occupied by texting on a cell phone.
The only proven way to remediate this issue is by abstaining from using a cell phone on
the road. Per the SEEV, no amount of practice or skill can overcome the inherent biology
behind how our brain allocates visual resources (Lee et al, 2008).
Multiple-Resource Model
The Multiple-Resource Model was also applied in Driver Distraction and seeks to dissect
how one’s ability to drive is impacted when their attention is divided. When we choose to
text and drive we are multitasking. The Multiple-Resource model can predict how
successfully an individual can multitask depending on the level of demand a task has on
the brain. While one may perceive they are a skilled at multitasking, the activities they
are engaging in generally have a low demand on the brain’s bandwidth and are of little
health risk. Tasks such as getting dressed while talking on the phone fall into this
category. Texting, on the other hand, requires a high level of focus due to a multitude of
factors such as typing accurately, punctuation, and reading the messages. Driving also
requires a large amount of the brain’s attention. The combination of these two brain

intensive tasks, then, is a recipe for an accident on the roadway. The specific brain
pathways used when performing an activity is another component that can predict how
well one is able to multitask. According to The Multiple-Resource Model, the actions of
texting, and driving both occupy the brain’s spatial-visual pathway. This means that two
inherently high demand behaviors are also competing for space in the brain. The final
component of this model is how the brain allocates its resources when multitasking.
When one is texting and driving the brain has to choose which activity to focus on, it is
unable to effectively perform either task. Because of this, in order for any intervention to
be effective the behavior must stop all together. A driver is unable to operate their vehicle
in a safe manner when their attention is divided between a cell phone and the road. The
brain simply cannot meet the demand of performing both tasks at once; meaning that
texting while driving is truly texting or driving (Lee, et. al, 2008).
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
The Accident Analysis and Prevention study used The Theory of Planned
Behavior to study the prevalence of texting while driving among teenage Australian
drivers. The research looked at how factors such as subjective norms, perceived
behavioral control, intentions, social influence, and attitude effect behavioral
determination. By employing The Theory of Planned Behavior the researchers learned
that each of the factors are significant in determining whether or not one will text and
drive. Through this study, it has been suggested that a “multi-faceted” approach be
applied to intervention plans designed to reduce this deadly behavior (Nemme and White,
2010).
The Theory of Planned Behavior is a model with a primary focus on one’s
perceived control over performing a behavior. In the context of texting while driving, this
model refers to one’s ability to engage in multiple behaviors at once. Within the TPB
model are the constructs of subjective norms, attitude, perceived behavioral control, and
their corresponding impact on behavioral intention. It has been shown that subjective
norms, behaviors or beliefs that are generally accepted by society, play a small role in
predicting whether or not one will have intentions to text and drive. Attitude, however,
has more of an impact. When people are of the attitude or belief that texting and driving
is dangerous, their proclivity to engage in the behavior is decreased. In terms of texting

while driving, one’s perception of their ability to perform this behavior influences
attitude. Because of this, perceived behavioral control is the most influential construct of
forecasting one’s likelihood to text and drive. If a driver feels as though they have control
over their actions they have little hesitation to engage in the activity even when they
know it is dangerous (Nemme and White, 2010). Thus, in an intervention scenario the
most important construct to tackle is the perceived behavioral control element. Roadway
users need to understand that, per the SEEV and Multiple-Resource Model, a driver truly
does not have the necessary skills to control their actions when performing these two high
demand activities. Once that component is addressed and understood by the population,
corresponding attitudes and social norms will shift and ultimately change behavior.
APPROACH TO PLANNING
In order for an intervention to be successful in changing a behavior it must target
and impact multiple levels of influence. The Salience, Effort, Expectancy, and Value
model and the Multiple-Resource model were chosen because they were able to target the
behavior across the predisposing, reinforcing, and enabling factors that impact how likely
one is to text and drive (Lee, Et. Al., 2008). These theories focus their energy towards the
individual, or intrapersonal level, but through education can drive action at the
interpersonal, community, and policy levels.
Implementing the SEEV and Multiple-Resource theories correctly means first
understanding the scope of the problem at hand. Texting while driving is a national
public health threat in the United States and in order for an intervention to be effective it
must focus on precise factors the drive the behavior. Being too broad muddles the
message and reduces the effectiveness of the plan. Furthermore, because different
demographics respond to interventions in a dissimilar fashion, a specific population must
be targeted (Theory at a Glance, 2005).
INTERVENTION PLAN
The proposed intervention plan will target drivers categorized in the millennial
generation. The reason this group is being focused on is due to the fact that millennials
are the most likely age group to text while operating a motor vehicle (NHTSA, 2011).
Due to our young generation’s predilection towards mobile devices it would only be
natural to focus this intervention’s energy towards raising awareness through cell phones.

One of the most important aspects of this plan is education. Alarmingly, teens and
young drivers are of the perception that using a cellphone while driving does not
negatively impact their driving performance (NHTSA, 2011). Educating drivers on the
truth behind this behavior can change normative beliefs, values, and attitudes and, in turn,
change behavior. Running mobile ad campaigns on the dangers of texting while driving
targets the perception construct in The 4 P’s of Influence model. By highlighting how
texting while driving critically impairs one’s ability to text while driving, we can change
one’s perception on the behavior. As more individual perceptions are shifted through this
education the societal norms of the millennial generation will also shift, contributing to
reduced numbers of drivers that text while driving.
Education alone, however, is likely not enough to incite a behavioral change in
the millennial generation that has practically been raised on cell phones. Thus, equally
important to education in the mobile-centric intervention plan to reduce texting while
driving is reinforcing good behavior. Reinforcing a behavior increases the likelihood of
an individual continuing to behave in a certain way by giving the individual rewards and
positive feedback when they perform the behavior. Developing an app that gives drivers
incentive to refrain from texting on their cell phone when they are driving has the ability
to do just that. The app would operate on a structure that gives drivers prizes such as gift
cards, coupons, and other incentives when they do not text and drive. The more time that
the app detects an individual is not being distracted by their cellphone while driving, the
more points they accrue. If an individual does decide to text and drive, the application
will deduct points. These points can be redeemed for a myriad of prizes, which in turn
gives drivers tangible incentive to refrain from the behavior. Ultimately, using the mobile
phone itself as the medium through which we reduce texting while driving has great
potential to incite behavioral change.
CONCLUSION
In today’s hectic society drivers are increasingly pressured to be in constant
contact with the people and world around them. Long distance messages no longer have
to be mailed and spend days in purgatory to be received. One can send a text, and within
a matter of seconds expect a reply back from the recipient. It is without question then that
the cell phone has immeasurably improved the way in which people communicate and

connect with one another on a global scale. Likewise, cars have become larger, quicker,
and significantly more isolated from the roads on which they are driven. Factors these
two elements together and the issue of texting and driving becomes very clear. There
must be a change in the way drivers behave on the roadway. Education, norms, policy,
and law enforcement all must be addressed in a multi-faceted approach in order to
stimulate behavioral change (NHTSA, 2011). Until autonomous vehicles are established
on our roads, drivers need to be looking out of their windshields and not down at their
cell phones. Focused intervention strategies are needed to eradicate texting and driving
and ultimately make our morning commute a little less deadly.

RESOURCES
1. Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2010, September 1). The choice to text and drive in
younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1),
134-142. Retrieved February 17, 2014
2. Arnold, L., Hamilton, B., & Tefft, B. (2013, November). Distracted Driving and Perception of
Hands Free-Technologies. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2-18. Retrieved February
25, 2014
https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2013%20TSCI%20Cognitive%20Distra
ction.pdf
3. Chaudary, N., Cosgrove, L., & Tison, J. (2011, December). National phone survey on
distracted driving attitudes and behaviors. NHTSA, 55-67. Retrieved February 21, 2014
4. Depression (2014). In American Psychological Association. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from
http://www.apa.org/topics/depress/
5. Distracted Driving (2013). In AAA Foundation. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from
https://www.aaafoundation.org/distracted-driving
6. Distracted Driving (2013). In The Driving Safety Club. Retrieved April 21, 2014, from
http://thedrivingsafetyclub.com/the-driving-safety-club-distracted-driving.htm
7. Ginsburg, K.R., Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., Garcia-Espana, F., Kinsman, S., Quistberg,
D. A., Ross, J. G., et al. (2008). National young-driver survey: Teen perspective and
experience with factors that affect driving safety. Pediatrics, 121(5), 1291-1403.
Retrieved March 3, 2014
8. Grellhesl, M., & Punyanunt-Carter, N.M. (2012). Using the uses and gratification theory to
understand gratifications sought through text messaging practices of male and female

undergraduate students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2175-2181. Retrieved
March 3, 2014
9. Issar, N., Kadakia, R., Tsahkis, J., Yoneda, Z., Sethi, M., Mir, H., & Archer, K. (2013,
February 15). The link between texting and motor vehicle collision frequency in the
orthopaedic trauma population. Pub Med, 5(2), 95-100. Retrieved February 21, 2014
10. Jabali, S. M., Hussainat, M. M., Al-salem, R. K., & Zraikat, H. M. (2013). The Social,
Psychological and Economic Impact of Car Accidents on the Victims' Families. Journal
of Education and Practice, 4(2), 143-150. Retrieved January 27, 2014
11. Lane, K. (2010, January 12). NCS Estimates that At Least 1.6 Million Crashes Each Year
Involve Drivers Using Cell Phones and Texting. In National Safety Council. Retrieved
January 27, 2014, from
http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphone
sandtexting.aspx
12. Learn the Facts About Texting While Driving (2014). In EndDD.org. Retrieved March 21,
2014, from http://enddd.org/the-facts-about-distracted-driving/
13. Lee, V., Champagne, C., & Francescutti, L. (2013, July). Fatal distraction: cell phone use
while driving. Can Fam Physician, 59(7), 723-725. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23851528
14. Liao, C.-H., & Wan, Y.-B. (2009). Personality trait, social interaction and mobile phone
usage dependence. 5th
Communication Policy Research South Conference, 603-630.
Retrieved March 3, 2014, from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1724286

15. Madden, M., & Rainie, L. (2010, June 18). In Adults and Cell Phone Distractions. Retrieved
January 24, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Cell-Phone-
Distractions/Major-Findings/1-Texting-while-driving.aspx
16. Massachusetts Distracted Driving Study (2013, March). In Savits Research. Retrieved
February 7, 2014
17. Naylor, N. (2013, November 14). In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved January 23, 2014, from
http://www.distraction.gov/content/press-release/2013/11-14.html
18. Nemme, H. E., & White, K. M. (2010, July). Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences
on young people's texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
42(4). Retrieved March 30, 2014, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457510000370
19. Regan, Michael A., John D. Lee, and Kristie L. Young. Driver Distraction. N.p.: CRC Press,
2008. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
http://www.crcnetbase.com.libproxy.clemson.edu/isbn/9781420007497
20. Solutions (2013). In Distracted Driving Foundation. Retrieved March 14, 2014
21. Stravinos, D. (2009). Individual Differences in Perception of Distracted Driving Ability in
Teenage Drivers. In Translational Research for Injury Prevention. Retrieved February 8,
2014
22. Tel, O. A. (2010, March 31). U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Proposes Rule to
Ban Texting and Driving for Truck and Bus Drivers. In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved
January 27, 2014, from http://www.distraction.gov/content/press-release/2010/03-31.html
23. Texting and Driving: It Can Wait (2014). In AT&T Drive Mode. Retrieved March 21, 2014,
from https://www.att.com/Common/about_us/txting_driving/att_drivemode_factsheet.pdf

24. Traffic Safety Facts (2012, March). In Distraction.Gov. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from
http://www.distraction.gov/download/811611.pdf
25. Traffic Safety Facts (2011, March). NHTSA. Retrieved January 30, 2014, from http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811737.pdf
26. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020. Web.
March. 2013.
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx
27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health: National
Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practices. (2005)
Second eds. Print.
28. What is post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD? (2012). In National Institute of Mental
Health. Retrieved January 27, 2014, from
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-
ptsd/index.shtml

Txt240ppr

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Txt240ppr

Similar to Txt240ppr (11)

More from Jamory

More from Jamory (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Txt240ppr