Self-regulation of driving speed among distracted drivers: An application of driver behavioral adaptation theory

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The adaptive behavior of mobile phone-distracted drivers has been a topic of much discussion in the recent literature. Both simulator and naturalistic studies suggest that distracted drivers generally select lower driving speeds; however, speed adaptation is not observed among all drivers, and the mechanisms of speed selection are not well understood. The aim of this research was to apply a driver behavioral adaptation model to investigate the speed adaptation of mobile phone-distracted drivers. METHODS: The speed selection behavior of drivers was observed in 3 phone conditions including baseline (no conversation) and hands-free and handheld phone conversations in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Speed adaptation in each phone condition was modeled as a function of secondary task demand and self-reported personal/psychological characteristics with a system of seemingly unrelated equations (SURE) accounting for potential correlations due to repeated measures experiment design. RESULTS: Speed adaptation is similar between hands-free and handheld phone conditions, but the predictors of speed adaptation vary across the phone conditions. Though perceived workload of secondary task demand, self-efficacy, attitude toward safety, and driver demographics were significant predictors of speed adaptation in the handheld condition, drivers' familiarity with the hands-free interface, attitude toward safety, and sensation seeking were significant predictors in the hands-free condition. Drivers who reported more positive safety attitudes selected lower driving speeds while using phones. CONCLUSION: This research confirmed that behavioral adaptation models are suitable for explaining speed adaptation of mobile phone distracted drivers, and future research could be focused on further theoretical refinement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 85 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.