Applying to everyday problems Flashcards
road accident facts
1.25 millions death each year (WHO 2015)
9th common cause of death
under reported
car manufacturers promote hands free phones is safe-distraction leads to death
Figures on driving and phone use
45% drivers text in UK according to RAC 2008
75% of 18-25 year olds text according to Pennay 2006 australia
Dingus 2016
naturalistic study
cars equipped with sensors and cameras
3,500 US drivers
case control method:compare what proceeds crash and non-crash events
mobile use increases likelihood of crashing 4 fold
using touch screen increases likelihood 5 fold
human visual system
visual acuity decreases at peripheral
eye makes 3 fixations a min
attention part of perception
change blindness-failure to detect visual change
inattentional blindness-failure to notice unexpected event when attention diverted to other aspect
theoretical model of attetnion
limited mental resources, selective attention required
distinction between automatic and controlled processing
Rasmussen: hierarchal model of driving: operational->tactical->strategic
Norman and shallice 1980
two systems in attention
lower level: contention scheduling
higher level: supervisory attentional system
automatic response to a trigger is lower level
if don’t get result from lower level, higher level relied on to get result
Hockeys compensation control theory
drivers may preserve performance on primary task at expense of secondary task
results in driving performance decreasing
Wickens multiple resource theory 1984 - task interference
task interference affected by 3 factors: mode of input (auditory, visual, tactile), type of coding (spatial, verbal), type of response (manual, visual)
Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997 - phone bills and drivinh
case control study
itemised phone bills of 699 toronto drivers
driver reports crash, see if phone in use in moments leading up to crash
risk collision 3-6.5 times greater if phone in use
collision risk same for all types of drivers
Alm and Nilsson - braking responses
1994-braking reponse to symbol, RT increased from 0.95 to 1.3 when using phone
1995-emergency brake inresponse to car infront, RT increased from 1.6 to 2.2 when phone in use
Hancock, Lrsch and simmons -normal driving ….
normal driving is long periods of low demand interspersed with moments of crucial responses
RT in emergency braking slowed by dual task
Atchley 2017-difference between handheld or handsfree
no difference between hands free and hand held phone
81% phone studies show significant impairment
Strayer and Johnston 2001 - RT to red light and conversation
RT to red light
participnats listen to radio, converse over phone or undivided attention
active participation in conversing is problem
passive listening no affect on performance
loss of non-verbal cues requires more concentration to maintain convo
passengers adjust convo to driving conditions
Crundall, bains chapman and underwoods 2005 - phone distraction
participants drove in silence or conversed with passenger or on phone
phone just as distracting as mobile phone
Hyman unicycling clown 2010
watched students cross courtyard
noted how often change direction, acknowledgements
if on phone lack situation awareness, take longer to cross, change direction more, didnt see unicycling clown
recrate and nunes 2000- eye movement in driving
verbal and spatial imagery tasks while driving
both increased pupil size
both tasks reduced gaze distribution
spatial task produced more eye fixations
Briggs, hole and land 2011 - eye movement with phobics
eye movements in stimulated motorway driving
participants on phone, conversation about spiders
spider phobic more fixed view, cognitive tunnel vision
non phobic less fixations, lower cog tunnel vision
Briggs hole and land 2016-visual imagery
conversations involving visual imagery
imagery and perception share processing systems
imagery and ‘real world’ compete for attention
primary task: hazard perception
secondary task: sentence verification with imagery inducing or non imagery inducing statements
distracted participants detect fewer hazards
distraction increases with imagery induction
effects worse for high imageners
Drains on processing resources
driving-vehicle control, hazard perception, hazard detection, hazard perception, lane keeping
phones-problem solving, maintenance of convo, mental imagery, emotional effects of convo
immediate consequences:compensatory behaviour eg driving slower
ultimate consequences:increased RT to hazards, earlier onset fatigue
result in increased accident risk
psychological theories of driving
norman & shallice: theory of controlled and automatic processing-relying on contention scheduling
Hockeys compensatory control theory: compensate for impairment by using mirrors less, driving slower
wickens multiple resource theory: explain why driving and phone use interfere
why drivers use their phones
fail to notice own impairment, effects are cognitive as vehicle control not affected
self serving bias-better driver than everyone
faulty risk perception-illusion of control:self driving cars
protective beliefs-im a good driver
accidents are rare so no immediate penalties, every trip reinforces delusion they are safe
theory of planned behaviour
lieklihood of performing behaviour affected by:
perceived benefits-not wasting time
perceived costs-low accident risk
perceived acceptability-everyone does it
benefits and acceptability override costs
possible solutions to crashes
educate-make drivers aware
enforcement-detection and prosecution
engineering-ignition interlocks
future-driverless cars, drivers not distracted
driverless cars
semi autonomous:driver assisted systems, control driving for 5 seconds, there to support human ability, encourage laziness
fully autonomous:robot taxis,self driving cars dont require human driving