Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Psychological predictors of college students cell phone use while driving

Michle M. Schlehofer a, , Suzanne C. Thompson b , Sarah Ting c , Sharon Ostermann b ,
Angela Nierman b , Jessica Skenderian c
a

Salisbury University, United States

Pomona College, United States
c
Claremont Graduate University, United States
b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 July 2009
Received in revised form
15 December 2009
Accepted 19 December 2009
Keywords:
Cell phone
Driving
Illusory control

a b s t r a c t
Despite the known risk, many people talk on a phone while driving. This study explored psychological
predictors of cell phone use while driving. College students (nal N = 69) completed a survey and predicted their driving performance both with and without a simultaneous phone conversation. Their actual
performance on a driving simulator was then assessed. Cell phone use reduced performance on the simulation task. Further, perceiving oneself as good at compensating for driving distractions, overestimating
ones performance on the driving simulator, and high illusory control predicted more frequent cell phone
use while driving in everyday life. Finally, those who talked more frequently on a phone while driving
had poorer real-world driving records. These ndings suggest illusory control and positive illusions partly
explain drivers decisions of whether to use cell phones while driving.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Each year, talking on a cell phone while driving causes an estimated 2600 motor vehicle-related deaths, 330,000 moderate to
critical injuries, and 1.5 million instances of property damage in
the United States (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis [HCRA], 2002).
Talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than talking to an
in-car passenger because while in-car passengers regulate their
conversations according to driving conditions and warn drivers
of impending road hazards, cell phone conversants cannot (e.g.,
Crundall et al., 2005; Charlton, 2008). Thus, it is no surprise that
the driving distractions caused by using a cell phone are not
eliminatedand perhaps are not even substantially reducedby
using hands-free phone devices (Goodman, 2005; Strayer et al.,
2003).
Nevertheless, many people use a cell phone while driving. In
2005, approximately 974,000 individuals talked on a hand-held
phone while driving at any given moment during daylight hours
(Glassbrenner, 2005). Young adult drivers (aged 1624) are more
likely to talk on a cell phone while driving than older drivers,
and their rates of the practice are increasing (Cramer et al., 2007;
Glassbrenner, 2005). Seo and Torabi (2004) conducted a large sur-

Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Salisbury University, 1101

Camden Ave., Salisbury, MD 21801, United States. Tel.: +1 410 677 0034;
fax: +1 410 548 2056.
E-mail address: mmschlehofer@salisbury.edu (M.M. Schlehofer).
0001-4575/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.024

vey on a college campus and found that 86% of drivers surveyed talk
on a cell phone while driving at least occasionally, and cell phone
use was involved in at least 21% of accidents.
This behavior is not due to a lack of awareness of its dangerousness: many people perceive using a cell phone while driving to be
a dangerous activity (Seo and Torabi, 2004; White et al., 2004), and
some even consider it riskier than other activities one can engage
in while driving, such as eating (White et al., 2004). How can we
understand why many drivers expose themselves to this risk?
1.1. Why do people use cell phones while driving?
A growing number of investigators have explored the conditions under which people will use cell phones while driving.
Driving conditions (e.g., type of road one is driving on) have little to no effect on peoples willingness to engage in cell phone use
while driving (Lerner and Boyd, 2005), with research nding that
people engage in distractive cell phone tasks regardless of the difculty of their current driving conditions (Horrey and Lesch, 2009).
Rather, research suggests that use of a cell phone while driving
is explained better by individual difference variables than by current driving conditions (Lerner and Boyd, 2005). In this study we
explore three related psychological individual difference factors
that appear particularly promising in explaining phone use while
driving: overestimating ones ability to compensate for driving distractions, having a general propensity toward illusions of control,
and use of a controlling cognitive style. Each of these psychological
mechanisms is discussed below.

1108

M.M. Schlehofer et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

1.1.1. Perceptions of ability to compensate

Although people, in general, recognize the dangers of talking
on a cell phone while driving (White et al., 2004), individuals may
overestimate their own ability to drive safely while conversing on
a phone. People often judge that their attributes and skills are better than those of a relevant comparison group (Alicke et al., 1995).
These beliefs extend to peoples perceptions of their own driving
skills. Research shows that between 70 and 90% of drivers believe
they are safer and more skilled than the average driver (Svenson,
1981; Walton and Bathurst, 1998; McCormick et al., 1986; McKenna
et al., 1991). Further, people seem to be unaware of the extent to
which cell phones distract them while driving (Horrey et al., 2008),
with women being most susceptible (Lesch and Hancock, 2004).
Therefore, a strong belief in ones own ability to compensate for
the distraction of cell phone use could lead people to feel safe while
driving and phoning and contribute to more frequent engagement
in this activity.
1.1.2. Illusions of control
There is a well-established body of research which suggests people are motivated to believe they are in control of their environment
(see Thompson and Schlehofer, 2007, for a review). Illusory control, or overestimations of the control one has in avoiding negative
outcomes, can help reduce ones stress and anxiety (Miller, 1979).
Illusions of control might be another reason why people frequently
use a cell phone while driving. These illusions are widespread,
occurring in settings as diverse as laboratory tasks (Alloy and
Abramson, 1979; Thompson et al., 2004), games of chance (Langer,
1975), gambling decisions (Cantinotti et al., 2004), simulations of
stockbroker decisions (Fenton-OCreevy et al., 2003), and driving
behaviors (Horswill and McKenna, 1999). Horswill and McKenna
(1999), for instance, found that people think that they are less
likely to be in an accident when they are the driver than the
passenger in a motor vehicle. Presumably, people feel that they
have more control than other drivers would over the driving situation.
Even people who recognize that cell phone use is a distraction
while driving may be misled by illusory control to believe that
they can control for this distraction and, thereby, not suffer impairment to their driving. If this is the case, then we would expect that
those who generally are more prone to illusory control will be more
frequent cell phone users while driving.
1.1.3. Controlling cognitive style
Finally, talking on a cell phone while driving could be seen as an
efcient use of ones time. Thus, it is also possible that frequent cell
phone use while driving has a utilitarian basis by satisfying individuals desire to control their time. The degree to which individuals
prefer to control events in their lives has been linked to several
factors, including achievement, stress and coping strategies, health
behaviors, and gambling behavior (Burger, 1992). Relevant to driving behaviors, a study by Hammond and Horswill (2002) indicated
that drivers high in desire for control were more likely to engage in
risky driving behaviors than were those low in desire for control.
In addition, multitasking is a high control style that is associated
with the Type A personality pattern. Individuals classied as Type
A personalities are more likely than Type B personalities to engage
in risky driving behaviors, including using a cell phone while driving (Nabi et al., 2004). Similarly, Lerner and Boyd (2005) found that
self-identifying as a multitasker while driving was related to being
more willing to engage in cell phone use while driving and seeing
the behavior as less risky.
The time-saving advantages of cell phone use while driving
would be particularly attractive to people who have a controlling
cognitive style. Thus we expected that a controlling cognitive style,
which we dene as being a chronic multitasker and having a high

desire for control, would be associated with more frequent cell

phone use while driving.
1.2. The current study
This study used these three related psychological factors, one
that is specic to cell phone use while driving and two that tap into
more general individual differences in control perceptions, to help
explain why some individuals use a cell phone while driving. To test
the relationship between these predictors (overestimating ones
ability to compensate for driving distractions, a general propensity
to illusions of control, and a controlling cognitive style) and driving while using a cell phone, a two-phase study was conducted. In
Phase 1, participants reported on the extent to which they used
a cell phone while driving in everyday life and answered questions to measure absolute and comparative perceptions of ability to
compensate for driving distractions, illusions of control, cognitive
styles, and their driving record.
In Phase 2, an objective measure of overestimating ones ability
to compensate for cell phone use was obtained by having participants drive on a driving simulator with and without using a cell
phone. We predicted that more frequent everyday driving while
using a cell phone would be associated with higher judgments of
being able to compensate for driving distractions, being an overestimator of ones ability to drive the simulator while using a cell
phone, high illusory control, and a controlling cognitive style.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
In Phase I, 91 participants completed a survey of personality
measures and self-reports of driving behaviors. Two weeks later,
participants reporting having a valid drivers license (N = 86, 94.5%)
were contacted to complete Phase II of the experiment. Seventy-six
participants (88% of those recruited for the second phase; 83.5% of
the initial sample) participated in Phase II. Seven participants indicated during Phase II testing that they did not have a valid drivers
license and were subsequently omitted.
The nal sample consisted of 69 students (63.8% female) aged
1722 (M = 19.03, SD = .69). Seventy-one percent were Caucasian,
14.7% Asian/Pacic Islander, 4.4% Hispanic/Latino, and 10.3% were
multi-racial. All participants had a cell phone and a valid drivers
license1 , and 53 (76.8%) reported using their cell phones while driving.
2.2. Procedure
In the rst phase, participants completed measures of illusory
control, their perceived ability to compensate for cell phone distractions while driving, use of a controlling cognitive style, and
self-reported driving behaviors. Approximately two to three weeks
later, participants were contacted and asked to complete Phase II
of the experiment. Participants were run in small groups for Phase I
and singularly for Phase 2. Each participant received either research
credit in his or her introductory psychology course, or $5.00 compensation for taking part in each phase.
In Phase II, participants completed driving simulations via the
STISIM program, a driving simulation program developed by SystemsTech Inc. The simulation program ran on a desktop computer
with a 16 in. monitor, and included a Microsoft Sidewinder game
controller consisting of two foot pedals (a gas pedal and a brake

1
N varies across analyses due to the fact that N = 16 participants did not report
talking on a cell phone while driving.

M.M. Schlehofer et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

pedal) and a steering wheel smaller in size, but structurally similar to that found in a standard automobile. The driving simulation
course consisted of a basic driving task. During the simulation, participants drove in a rural area in which they were required to stop
at several 4-way intersections marked with stop lights and stop
signs. There was minimal oncoming trafc on straight-aways and
two cross-trafc vehicles at each intersection. Participants also had
one speeding car pass them on the left-hand side. The task required
no turns. The monitor display was similar to that of looking over
the dashboard of an automobile with a rear-view mirror. Participants were instructed that they could look out the side windows
to view cross-trafc by pressing a button on their steering wheel.
Looking out of side windows was not necessary for completion of
the driving course.
There is evidence for the ecological validity of driving simulators
(Lee et al., 2003, 2007; Lew et al., 2005). For example, Lee et al.
(2003) found that performance on the STISIM shared two-thirds of
the variance of driving performance based on a real-world driving
index. However, it should be noted that a driving simulation cannot
capture all the features of actual driving such as the severe negative
consequences of mistakes, so simulators remain an approximation
to real-world driving.
The driving simulation task started with a 5-min practice session
followed by a 7-min baseline session. Participants were then given
a driving score based on their baseline performance. Scores ranged
from 95 to 195, with an average score of 163.12 (SD = 22.17).2 Some
participants could have received negative objective feedback during the task (e.g., got in a collision), which would undermine natural
control perceptions (Thompson et al., 1998). Thus, to avoid this,
all participants were given the mildly positive feedback that their
performance was above the average of what people usually do.
After receiving their score, participants were told that the maximum driving score was 200, and were asked to estimate what their
score would be if they completed the task under several conditions:
the same conditions, with intermittent noise in the background,
under nighttime driving conditions, while talking on a cell phone,
while having a conversation with someone in the room, and while
eating a hamburger or vegetable burger. Our interest was in the
cell phone judgments. The other items were included to disguise
the intent of the measure, as at this point, participants did not know
that they would be asked to drive the simulator while talking on a
phone.
Finally, participants completed two 7-min driving tasks, once
with no distractions, and once while talking on a hand-held phone.
These driving tasks were the same as the baseline task, however,
the color of passing trafc and appearance of building and trees
was modied to reduce task familiarity. Task order was counterbalanced across participants to control for order effects.
The hand-held phone used in the phone task was a small Vtech
brand cordless phone, selected in size to be roughly equivalent to
a larger-sized cell phone. During the phone condition, participants
had a conversation (without dialing) with a second experimenter in
another room. Based on a meta-analysis of the impact of cell phone

2
The simulator program records driving errors, but does not score driving performance; thus, it was necessary to develop a measure for this study. As receiving
a negative performance score might undermine control perceptions, we rst gave
everyone a maximum score of 200, thus increasing the likelihood that all participants
would receive a positive performance score. From this maximum score, points were
deducted for driving errors recorded by the program. These driving errors included
centerline crossings (5 points for each crossing), road edge excursions (10 points
for each), running red lights (10 points), and accidents and collisions (20 points).
Deductions for each driving error were weighted in accordance with their likelihood
of causing an accident. In the STISIM program, extreme road edge excursions and
running red lights always resulted in an accident, while centerline crossings only
resulted in an accident if there was oncoming trafc. Thus, road edge excursions and
running red lights were weighted more heavily than centerline crossings.

1109

conversations while driving, Horrey and Wickens (2006) suggested

that stronger effects will be found with more intense and emotionally involving conversations. Thus, participants had their choice of
two topics, both of which were expected to require a level of emotional involvement that can be found in real-life cell phone use
situations: the war in Iraq, or gay marriage. Topics were assigned
in order to standardize the conversation as much as possible across
participants. For each conversation topic, the second experimenter
asked participants a series of pre-scripted questions through the
duration of the driving course.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Phase I measures
2.3.1.1. Frequency of cell phone use while driving. Participants
reported whether they used a cell phone while driving. For those
who responded yes to this initial question, they were asked, How
often do you use a cell phone while driving? rated on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = very seldom to 7 = very often.
2.3.1.2. Illusory control. Participants completed Friedland et al.s
(1992) illusory control measure that assesses perceived control
over uncontrollable events via hypothetical situations; for instance,
by asking the respondent to indicate whether they would rather
choose their own lottery ticket numbers or rely on the machine
to choose. The scale consisted of 4 items assessed on a 10-point
Likert scale (e.g., let the machine choose for me to choose the
ticket myself). Responses were added together to create a composite measure, with higher numbers indicative of greater illusory
control.
2.3.1.3. Controlling cognitive style. Participants completed two
scales that together tap into having a controlling cognitive style.
First, participants completed the Desire for Control Scale (Burger
and Cooper, 1979), which assesses the extent to which they desire
having control in their lives ( = .77). The scale consists of 20 items
rated on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 = does not apply to
me at all to 7 = always applies to me. Sample items are, I enjoy having
control over my own destiny, and I enjoy being able to inuence the actions of others. Second, participants completed 9 items,
designed for this study, to assess the extent to which they prefer
to multitask ( = .83). Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = not at all like me to 7 = just like me. Sample items
included I hate to waste time and I prefer to work on several tasks
at once. These two measures were signicantly correlated (r = .31,
p < .001), so they were standardized and averaged together to create a single measure of controlling style. Higher numbers indicate
higher controlling style.
2.3.1.4. Driving record. Participants responded to 4 items assessing
their driving record ( = .74). First, they indicated the frequency
with which they drive over the posted speed limit on a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 7 = frequently. Then, they
were asked to report the number of accidents they have had since
getting their license, the number of times they were pulled over for
a moving violation, and the number of times they were ticketed for
a moving violation. These items were standardized by transforming
them into z-scores (M = 0, SD = 1) and averaged together to create
a driving record measure where higher numbers correspond to a
worse record.
2.3.1.5. Perceived ability to compensate. Participants completed
both absolute and comparative measures to assess the extent
to which they felt they could compensate for cell phone-related
distractions while driving. As a measure of absolute assessment,
participants were asked, To what extent can you compensate for

1110

M.M. Schlehofer et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

using a cell phone while driving? on a 7-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. To assess comparative judgments, participants were asked, Compared to the average student
(at your college), to what extent can you compensate for using a cell
phone while driving? measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 3 = much worse than average to 3 = much better than average,
with a mid-point of 0 = about average. These two measures were signicantly correlated (r = .57, p < .001), and thus were standardized
and averaged together to create one of our variables representing
perceived ability to compensate for cell phone use. Higher numbers
indicate stronger beliefs that one is good at compensating for cell
phone distractions.
2.3.2. Phase II measures
2.3.2.1. Objective measure of overestimating ability. Self-reports of
ability to compensate for cell phone distractions, although a common way of measuring overestimations, are difcult to interpret,
as they do not distinguish between those who can, in fact, compensate for the impairments associated with using a cell phone
while driving and those who believe they can, but cannot. Thus we
included an objective measure of whether or not participants overestimate their actual ability to compensate for cell phone driving
distractions.
The measure was calculated by subtracting actual driving performance on a driving simulator while using a cell phone from
predicted performance. Positive scores indicate overestimations of
ability to drive while using a cell phone. A dichotomous measure of
overestimation was created by assigning overestimation scores to
two groups: 1 = accurate or underestimation of performance while
using cell phone; 2 = overestimation of performance while using
cell phone.3
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary data analyses
Prior to testing the hypothesis, the inuence of using a cell phone
on scores on the computer simulation task was explored. A oneway within subjects ANOVA, comparing performance scores on the
driving simulator when participants were not talking on the cell
phone to their scores when they were, was signicant, t (68) = 4.47,
p < .001, 2 = .23. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Strayer and
Johnston, 2001), driving scores were lower (M = 157.6, SD = 25.7)
with a phone conversation than without (M = 170.0, SD = 20.2), a
nding which adds validity to the driving simulation task used in
this study as a method of assessing driving performance.
Bivariate relationships between the variables were examined.
These correlations, along with descriptive statistics for the measures, are displayed in Table 1. As can be seen in Table 1, frequency
of driving while using a cell phone was positively associated with
illusory control, perceived ability to compensate for cell phone use
while driving, and a controlling cognitive style. Although not statistically signicant, overestimation of ones performance while
using a phone during the driving simulation task was also positively associated with participants frequency of driving while using
a cell phone. None of the four measures being used to understand
cell phone use were intercorrelated, all rs < |.18|. However, overestimating performance on the simulator and perceptions of ones
ability to compensate for driving with a cell phone were both statistically signicantly associated, and frequency of cell phone use

3
The continuous measure of overestimation did not correlate with other measures in the study possibly because whether or not one overestimates is an important
issue, but the degree of overestimation is not. Thus the dichotomous variable was
used in the analyses.

while driving and a controlling cognitive style were marginally

correlated with a worse real-world driving record.4
Finally, gender differences on scores on all variables were
explored. Consistent with prior research (Lesch and Hancock, 2004)
there was a trend such that women (M = 1.37, SD = .49) were
marginally more likely than men (M = 1.15, SD = .37) to overestimate their performance on the driving simulator task (t (73) = 1.96,
p < .06). There were no other gender effects.
3.2. Hypothesis test
To test the hypothesis that the four measures could help explain
frequency of cell phone use while driving in everyday life, a simultaneous entry multiple regression analysis was conducted with
frequency of cell phone use as the dependent variable and judging
that one has the ability to compensate for cell phone distractions,
the objective measure of overestimating ones ability to compensate, a propensity to illusory control thinking, and a controlling
cognitive style as independent variables. The model was adjusted
for baseline scores on the driving simulator because they were
marginally related to frequency of cell phone use. The regression
was signicant, R = .66, F (5, 47) = 7.1, p < .001, accounting for 43%
of the variance in frequency of cell phone use (adjusted R2 ). Illusory control ( = .27, p < .05) and perceived ability to compensate
for distractions ( = .48, p < .001) made independent signicant contributions to the prediction of frequency of cell phone use. Those
higher in illusory control and in beliefs that they could compensate were more frequent cell phone users while driving. There was
a trend for those overestimating their ability to drive the simulator while talking on a cell phone to report more frequently
using a cell phone while driving ( = .20, p < .10). Overestimating
ones ability was associated with more frequent cell phone use
in everyday life. Despite the signicance of the bivariate correlation, use of a controlling cognitive style did not make a signicant
independent contribution to the model ( = .18, n.s.).5 Thus, the
hypothesis was conrmed with the proviso that the relationship
between a controlling cognitive style and frequency of cell phone
driving was not independent of the other factors in the multiple
regression.
4. Discussion
Driving while using a cell phone is dangerous (HCRA, 2002), yet
millions of people do this everyday (Glassbrenner, 2005). Younger
adults, in particular, have high rates of cell phone use while driving
(Glassbrenner, 2005), and this rate of usage is likely only to grow
with the increased availability and affordability of cellular technology. The current study assessed the ability of psychological factors
to predict self-rated frequency of driving while talking on a cell
phone.
Our ndings are consistent with prior research on the negative
effects cell phone use has on driving performance (HCRA, 2002;
Strayer and Johnston, 2001), highlighting both the importance of

4
The procedure of counting both the self-reported number of times participants
had been pulled over for a moving violation and the number of times ticketed in
the measure of driving record might have double-counted some events in which
participants both got pulled over and were ticketed. Thus, two other versions of this
measure were created and tested, using either the number of times pulled over or
the number of times ticketed in the driving record variable. The correlations with
these alternative versions of the driving record variable are in the same direction
and strength as reported here.
5
The data were also analyzed using desire for control and multitasking as separate
predictors. Keeping these two variables as separate predictors did not change the
pattern of results. Both were still insignicant in the nal model, while the remaining
predictors were signicant or marginally signicant.

M.M. Schlehofer et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

1111

Table 1
Correlations of illusory control, ability to compensate, controlling cognitive style, overestimation of performance, and driving record with frequency of everyday cell phone
use while driving.
1
1. Illusory controla
2. Perceived ability to compensatea , b
3. Controlling cognitive stylea , b
4. Overestimation of cell phone driving performance
on simulatora
5. Frequency of driving cell phone usea
6. Driving recordb , c
M (SD)
a
b
c
*
***
+

.10
.13
.17
.29*
.11
28.25 (5.20)

.06

.09
.02
.47***
.33*
.07 (.99)

.30*
.29+
.00 (.81)

.14
.32*
1.29 (.46)

.30+

3.21 (1.71)

.05(.71)

Higher scores indicate greater presence of the construct.

Average of standardized scores.
Higher score means a worse driving record.
p < .05.
p < .001.
p < .10.

researching predictors of decisions to use cell phones while driving,

and verifying the validity of our driving performance measure and
our assessment of frequency of cell phone use. Interestingly, the
psychological factors studied in this investigation, while sharing
conceptual similarity and independently contributing to variability
in the frequency of which participants reported using a cell phone
while driving, were not correlated at the bivariate level. The ndings offer many avenues for future research into the psychological
predictors of decisions to talk on a cell phone while driving.
The rst conclusion that can be drawn from these ndings is that
there is an element of illusion or overly optimistic thinking involved
in decisions of driving cell phone use. That is, people who frequently
use a cell phone while driving are those who feel a sense of control over their driving performance and who perceive themselves
to be skilled at compensating for driving distractions, regardless of
whether they actually have these skills. On the surface, this may
not seem surprising, given that positive illusions are rather common thought processes (Taylor and Brown, 1988). However, these
results go beyond prior research to suggest that more than one positive illusion is simultaneously involved in this decision. Further, we
can infer that participants are indeed displaying positive illusions,
rather than accurately assessing that they are better than similar others at compensating for cellular phone distractions, because
many high self-assessment individuals overestimated their performance on the driving simulation task.
Second, our nding that people who more frequently use a cell
phone while driving in everyday life tended to overestimate their
driving simulator performance while using a phone suggests that,
independent of illusory or optimistic thinking, some people may
be unaware of the extent to which carrying on a conversation can
impair their driving performance. Those who overestimated their
ability may not be as attuned to information about cell phone effects
on driving or may be less attentive to how it affects their performance. Further, when asked to consider a specic driving situation
(the simulator) about a quarter (28%) of the participants overestimated how well they would drive when speaking on a phone; these
individuals tended to be more likely to drive and use a cell phone.
Finally, although people who have a controlling cognitive style
(dened in the current investigation as having a high desire for control and multitasking) are more likely to drive and use a cell phone,
this effect is not independent of the inuence of positive illusions
on this behavior. Further, as controlling cognitive style was not correlated at the bivariate level with any of the other independent
variables, we can conclude that no particular positive illusion mediated this relationship. Rather, the results suggest that the positive
illusion variables as a set explained the effect of having a controlling cognitive style on decisions to use a cell phone while driving,
suggesting that positive illusions are perhaps more relevant predic-

tors of decisions to use a cell phone while driving than are desire
for control or multitasking.
4.1. Implications
These ndings have implications for future research on why
people continue to use cell phones while driving. The results suggest that several types of inated self-perceptions were correlated
with the frequency of using a cell phone while driving. The next step
is to use an experimental design to manipulate perceptions such as
illusory control and a better-than-average judgment to establish
a causal link between these factors and phone use while driving.
If that link is conrmed, then research can focus on undermining individuals illusions of control and better-than-average beliefs
regarding their ability to talk on a cell phone and drive at the
same time. Prior research indicates that the experience of negative
feedback about ones performance is an effective way to challenge
positive illusions. For instance, Thompson et al. (2002) asked participants to identify who of several individuals had HIV/AIDS. Most
participants performed poorly on this test, and those who did
perform poorly had subsequently increased feelings of personal
susceptibility because the experience undermined the perception
that one can detect HIV in potential partners. Further, research
nds that better-than-average beliefs can be substantially reduced
when one experiences poorer performance in relation to ones
peers (Alicke et al., 1995). Extrapolating from these ndings, having drivers go through a driving simulator which demonstrates the
negative effect that cell phone use has on their driving behavior,
coupled with information that their driving impairment is comparable to the average driver, could undermine both illusions of
control and the better-than-average effect, and subsequently result
in a reduction of cell phone while driving behavior.
4.2. Limitations
This study, which provided an initial attempt to explore psychological predictors of decisions to use a cell phone while driving, is
not without its limitations. The sample, which consisted of college
students, was rather small and may not be representative of many
drivers. Unfortunately, the small sample size does not permit analyses of gender and other important inter-personal differences in
driving behavior and cell phone use. More importantly, the simulator, although a valid measure of real-world driving behavior in
some contexts, does not fully mimic the complexity under which
driving decisions occur. Further, some aspects of the driving task,
such as the limiting eld of view posed by the computer screen
and the procedure of having to press a button to look out the
side mirrors, are not naturalistic. The simulation procedures in this

1112

M.M. Schlehofer et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2010) 11071112

research are similar to that used in previous research, as evidenced

by ndings that phone use undermined driving performance. Nevertheless, it is important that the results found here be validated in
a naturalistic driving task.
4.3. Conclusions
Driving distractions are a major cause of motor vehicle accidents. The dangers posed by driving while distracted are likely to
increase over the coming years as cell phones become even more
common and use of other distractions such as mapping programs
and DVD players continue to increase. This study was a successful
rst step to understanding why people ignore safety implications
and use a cell phone while driving. Social psychological concepts
such as illusory control and positive illusions provided a useful
framework for examining this important public safety issue. Future
research should investigate ways to reduce illusory thinking and
encourage safer driving practices.
References
Alicke, M.D., Klotz, M.L., Breitenbecher, D.L., Yurak, T.J., Vredenburg, D.S., 1995.
Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 68, 804825.
Alloy, L.B., Abramson, L.Y., 1979. Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 108, 441485.
Burger, J.M., 1992. Desire for Control: Personality, Social and Clinical Perspectives.
Plenum, New York.
Burger, J.M., Cooper, H.M., 1979. The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion
3, 381393.
Cantinotti, M., Ladouceur, R., Jacques, C., 2004. Sports betting: can gamblers beat
randomness? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 18, 143147.
Charlton, S.G., 2008. Driving while conversing: cell phones that distract and passengers who react. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (1), 160173.
Cramer, S., Mayer, J., Ryan, S., 2007. College students use cell phones while driving
more frequently than found in government study. Journal of American College
Health 56, 181184.
Crundall, D., Bains, M., Chapman, P., Underwood, G., 2005. Regulating conversation
during driving: a problem for mobile telephones? Transportation Research Part
F: Trafc Psychology & Behavior 8 (3), 197211.
Fenton-OCreevy, M., Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Willman, P., 2003. Trading on illusions: unrealistic perceptions of control and trading performance. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology 76, 5368.
Friedland, N., Keinan, G., Regev, Y., 1992. Controlling the uncontrollable: effects of
stress on illusory perceptions of controllability. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 63, 923931.
Glassbrenner, D., 2005. Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005Overall Results,
Retrieved on May 24, 2006, from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd30/NCSA/RNotes/2005/809967.pdf.
Goodman, A., 2005. New risks cited for handheld cell phone us while driving. Neurology Today 5, 5354.
Hammond, T., Horswill, M., 2002. The inuence of desire for control on drivers
risk-taking behaviour. Transportation Research, Part F 4, 271277.
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, 2002. Updated Study Shows Higher Risk of
Fatality from Cell Phones While Driving, Retrieved on June 4, 2006, from
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/cellphones.html.
Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., 2009. Driver-initiated distractions: examining strategic
adoption for in-vehicle task initiation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41,
115122.

Horrey, W.J., Lesch, M.F., Garabet, A., 2008. Assessing the awareness of performance decrements in distracted drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40,
675682.
Horrey, W.J., Wickens, C.D., 2006. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations
on driving using meta-analytic techniques. Human Factors 48, 196205.
Horswill, M.S., McKenna, F.P., 1999. The effect of perceived control on risk taking.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29, 377391.
Langer, E.J., 1975. The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
32, 311328.
Lee, H.C., Cameron, D., Lee, A.H., 2003. Assessing the driving performance of older
adult drivers: on-road versus simulated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35, 797803.
Lee, H., Falkmer, T., Rosenwax, L., Cordell, R., Granger, A., Vieira, B., Lee, A., 2007.
Validity of driving simulator in assessing drivers with Parkinsons disease.
Advances in Transportation Studies: An International Journal (special issue),
8190.
Lerner, N., Boyd, S., 2005. On-road Study of Willingness to Engage in Distracting Tasks. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Trafc Safety
Administration, DOT HS 809 863.
Lesch, M.F., Hancock, P.A., 2004. Driving performance during concurrent cell-phone
use: are drivers aware of their performance decrements? Accident Analysis and
Prevention 36, 471480.
Lew, H.L., Poole, J.H., Lee, E.H., Jaffe, D.L., Huang, H.C., Brodd, E., 2005. Predictive
validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a
preliminary study. Brain Injury 19, 177188.
McCormick, I.A., Walkey, F.H., Green, D.E., 1986. Comparative perceptions of driver
abilitya conrmation and expansion. Accident Analysis and Prevention 18,
205208.
McKenna, F.P., Stanier, R.A., Lewis, C., 1991. Factors underlying illusory selfassessment of driving skill in males and females. Journal of Accident Analysis
and Prevention 23, 4952.
Miller, S.M., 1979. Controllability and human stress: method, evidence, and theory.
Behavior Research and Theory 17, 287306.
Nabi, H., Consoli, S.M., Chastang, J.F., Chiron, M., Lafont, S., Lagarde, E., 2004. Type A
behavior pattern, risky driving behaviors, and serious road trafc accidents: a
prospective study of the GAZEL cohort. American Journal of Epidemiology 161,
864870.
Seo, D., Torabi, M.R., 2004. The impact of in-vehicle cell-phone use on accidents or
near-accidents. Journal of American College Health 53, 101107.
Strayer, D.L., Drews, F.A., Johnston, W.A., 2003. Cell phone induced failures of visual
attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
9, 2332.
Strayer, D.L., Johnston, W.A., 2001. Driven to distraction: dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone. Psychological Science 12,
462466.
Svenson, O., 1981. Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?
Acta Psychologica 47, 143148.
Taylor, S.E., Brown, J.D., 1988. Illusion and well-being: a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin 103, 193210.
Thompson, S.C., Armstrong, W., Thomas, C., 1998. Illusions of control, underestimations, and accuracy: a control heuristic explanation. Psychological Bulletin 123,
143161.
Thompson, S.C., Kyle, D., Osgood, A., Quist, R.M., Phillips, D.J., McClure, M., 2004. Illusory control and motives for control: the role of connection and intentionality.
Motivation and Emotion 28, 315330.
Thompson, S.C., Kyle, D., Swan, J., Thomas, C., Vrungos, S., 2002. Increasing condom use by undermining perceived invulnerability to HIV. AIDS Education and
Prevention 14, 505514.
Thompson, S.C., Schlehofer, M.M., 2007. The many sides of control motivation:
motives for high, low, and illusory control. In: Shah, J., Gardner, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Control Motivation, pp. 4156.
Walton, D., Bathurst, J., 1998. An exploration of the perceptions of the average
drivers speed compared to perceived driver safety and driving skill. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 30, 821830.
White, M.P., Eiser, J.R., Harris, P.R., 2004. Risk perceptions of mobile phone use while
driving. Risk Analysis 24, 323324.