Distraction Engagement Research Articles

Exploration of Social-Psychological Factors Leading to Distracted e-Bike Riding Among Delivery Workers in China

With the fast development of the online-to-offline market, there are over 13 million delivery workers in China, of which the primary transportation tool is electric bicycles (i.e., e-bikes). Because of the difficulty in executing enforced regulations, delivery workers usually engage in non-riding-related tasks (NRRTs) while riding e-bikes, leading to distracted riding, which can threaten traffic safety. Although distraction engagement in vehicle driving and motorcycle/bicycle riding has been extensively investigated, the prevalence of and the factors leading to distracted riding among delivery workers have not yet been explored. In this study, a survey has been designed to explore the social-psychological factors leading to NRRT engagement among delivery workers. The factors were chosen based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) framework. We have also assessed workers’ awareness of the regulation in the survey. A total of 150 delivery workers (146 males and 4 females, mean age: 27.25) participated in the study. Results show that delivery workers tended to engage more in technology-based NRRTs, and “manually operating the phone” was the most prevalent. Compared to older peers, younger workers held more positive attitudes toward engaging in NRRTs and perceived engaging in NRRTs as more prevalent among their colleagues. TPB-related factors (i.e., attitudes, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and perceived behavior control) were found to be correlated with self-reported NRRT engagement. The awareness of the regulations, however, had limited effects in explaining NRRT engagement. This research can provide insights into the design of countermeasures aiming at reducing the prevalence of NRRT engagement among delivery workers.

Targeting young driver emotions can reduce their cellphone distractions

ObjectiveThis study sought to evaluate the relationship between young drivers’ intention to engage in cellphone distractions while driving and their emotions towards the associated risks. First, we assessed whether the emotions of guilt, shame, and fear are associated with young drivers’ intention to engage in cellphone distractions, through an extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model. Second, we evaluated whether road signs that may evoke these negative emotions reduce cellphone use intentions among young drivers. MethodsAn online survey was conducted with young drivers (18 to 25 years old) from Ontario, Canada. 403 responses were collected, of which, 99 responses were used to evaluate the first objective and all 403 responses were used to evaluate the second objective. ResultsAnticipating feelings of guilt, shame, and fear negatively predicted the intention to engage in cellphone distractions, above and beyond the standard TPB constructs (i.e., attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control). When prompted with potentially emotion-evoking road signs (children crossing, my mom/dad works here), an increase in anticipated feelings of these emotions corresponded with lower intention to engage in cellphone distractions. ConclusionCountermeasures that target young driver emotions toward distracted driving risks may be effective in reducing their distraction engagement. Future studies in more controlled environments can investigate causal relationships between emotions and distracted driving among young drivers.

Distracted when Using Driving Automation: A Quantile Regression Analysis of Driver Glances Considering the Effects of Road Alignment and Driving Experience

Background: SAE Level 2 driving automation, the state-of-the-art in commercial vehicles, requires drivers to monitor the environment to resume vehicle control when automation limits are surpassed. However, this type of driving automation was found to increase distraction engagement. Although experienced drivers were shown to better regulate their visual engagement in distracting activities when driving with and without automation, the moderating effects of road demands (e.g., road alignment) have yet to be explored in detail, in particular, for driving with automation.Objective: To better understand the combined effects of road alignment, driving automation, and driving experience, we investigated the effects of these factors on driver glances to a visual-manual distraction task.Method: We present a secondary analysis, using quantile regression, of two previously reported driving simulator experiments. A total of 32 participants’ data, 16 from each experiment, were utilized. Half of these participants were novice and the other half were experienced drivers. The first experiment focused on non-automated driving, while the second focused on driving with adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance systems combined (i.e., SAE Level 2). The analysis reported here focuses on drivers’ visual distraction engagement in two highway drives that were identical across the two experiments.Results: With driving automation, compared to experienced driver glances, the duration of novice driver glances to the distraction task was more variable, longer, and less sensitive to variations in road alignment.Implications: These findings suggest that, with driving automation, novice drivers are more at risk of inappropriate engagement in distractions and do not adapt to road demands as well as experienced drivers, and thus should be supported accordingly.

Teen Driver Distractions and Parental Norms

Research related to parental norms on teen driver distractions is limited, although distracted driving is a serious concern for teens. This paper investigates whether teens’ perception of their parent’s engagement in and approval of distractions is different to what their parent reports, and whether any discrepancy relates to teens’ self-reported distraction engagement frequency. It also investigates whether there are discrepancies between the parents’ perception of their teen’s distraction engagement frequency and the teen’s self-report. A distinction is made between legal and illegal distractions as drivers may build stronger norms around illegal distractions. Analyses were conducted on data from 63 teen–parent dyads from Ontario, Canada, who completed an online survey, including self-reported engagement in 16 distractions and related descriptive (what parents/teens do) and injunctive (what parents approve/disapprove) norms. Dyads were divided into two groups: higher-engagers (n = 27) and lower-engagers (n = 36) based on teens’ self-reported engagement frequency. Higher-engagers reported engaging in both distraction types (legal and illegal) more often than their parent did; there was no difference between lower-engagers and their parent. Higher-engagers’ perception of their parent’s engagement in and approval of legal distractions was higher than their parent’s self-report, while these parents perceived their teen’s engagement in both distraction types to be lower compared with the teen’s self-report. The only discrepancy observed for lower-engagers was that teens’ perception of their parent’s approval of legal distractions was higher than parents’ self-reports. Our findings suggest that misperceptions may exist for teens who engage more frequently in distractions and for their parents, who may benefit from relevant interventions.

Risk perception and distraction engagement with smart devices in different types of walking environments

ObjectiveThe present study aims to: 1) determine whether the risks associated with distracted walking are influenced by walking environment by estimating the incidence and severity of phone-related distracted walking injuries; and 2) investigate individuals’ perceptions of distracted walking risk within different walking environments to understand whether individuals are aware of the potential risks and the manner in which they understand those risks. BackgroundDistracted walking has been increasingly considered a public safety issue over the past few years. Research has focused on understanding the many factors that may influence pedestrians’ engagement with smart-devices in order to address this issue. Risk perception may be one factor that guides engagement decisions but has not been widely studied in the context of distracted walking. Risk perception and the consequences of distracted walking are likely to be impacted by the walking environment, however, current research has typically focused on a subset of locations— streets and intersections. MethodThis study used the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), a national database of injuries due to consumer products, to understand the number and severity of distracted walking injuries and locations where it occurred. Phone related injury cases from 2011 to 2019 were extracted and categorized by two independent raters in terms of cause of injury and location of injury. An online questionnaire, N = 207, was used to understand how individuals’ perception of risk in five different walking environments (intersections, stairwells, hallways, pedestrian plazas, and parking lots) were related to distraction engagement. Risk perception was measured through three different framings: risk of distracted walking (i.e., overall risk of engaging with the behavior), risk of collision and risk of falls (e.g., risks associated with the consequences of engaging with the behavior). ResultsThe NEISS analysis showed an upward trend of distracted walking injuries from 2011 (2184 incidents) to 2019 (4711 incidents) and that the number of injuries differed across the different walking environments. The survey results showed that individuals varied their risk perception levels (risk of distracted walking, collision, and falls) based on the walking environment and distraction status (distraction and no distraction). The relationship between overall risk of distracted walking and the risks of the different consequences (falls & collision) differed by walking environment. Finally, significant negative correlations were found between risk perception and actual distraction engagement for each location.

Anticipatory Driving in Automated Vehicles: The Effects of Driving Experience and Distraction.

To understand the influence of driving experience and distraction on drivers' anticipation of upcoming traffic events in automated vehicles. In nonautomated vehicles, experienced drivers spend more time looking at cues that indicate upcoming traffic events compared with novices, and distracted drivers spend less time looking at these cues compared with nondistracted drivers. Further, pre-event actions (i.e., proactive control actions prior to traffic events) are more prevalent among experienced drivers and nondistracted drivers. However, there is a research gap on the combined effects of experience and distraction on driver anticipation in automated vehicles. A simulator experiment was conducted with 16 experienced and 16 novice drivers in a vehicle equipped with adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assist systems (resulting in SAE Level 2 driving automation). Half of the participants in each experience group were provided with a self-paced primarily visual-manual secondary task. Drivers with the task spent less time looking at cues and were less likely to perform anticipatory driving behaviors (i.e., pre-event actions or preparation for pre-event actions such as hovering fingers over the automation disengage button). Experienced drivers exhibited more anticipatory driving behaviors, but their attention toward the cues was similar to novices for both task conditions. In line with nonautomated vehicle research, in automated vehicles, secondary task engagement impedes anticipation while driving experience facilitates anticipation. Though Level 2 automation can relieve drivers of manually controlling the vehicle and allow engagement in distractions, visual-manual distraction engagement can impede anticipatory driving and should be restricted.

The effect of driving demands on distraction engagement and glance behaviors: Results from naturalistic data

ObjectiveTo understand drivers’ engagement in distractions and their visual attention allocation under different driving demands. Background: Although distraction increases crash risk, drivers engage in distractions frequently with no negative consequences, likely in part due to their self-regulating behaviors. Prior research revealed a variety of self-regulating behaviors specifically related to cell-phone engagement, but very limited research has investigated whether and how driving demands affect engagement in distractions in general, particularly within a natural setting rather than in the simulator. Method: We used the Naturalistic Engagement in Secondary Tasks (NEST) dataset, a subset of SHRP2 data, to analyze secondary task engagement and off-path (not in direction of travel) eye glances. In addition to assessing their relation to environmental demand, we also considered driver age and chosen speed. Results: Higher visual difficulty environments (characterized as visually complex and/or with low visibility) were associated with a decreased likelihood of secondary task engagement as well as a decrease in off-path glances, particularly longer ones (>2s). Drivers 35 and older had lower rates of off-path glances compared to younger drivers. An increase in speed was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of task engagement in higher motor control difficulty environments (characterized as poor surface condition and/or curved road) but not in lower ones. Conclusion: Drivers appear to modulate their task engagement and off-path glances based on driving demands. However, given that inopportune short off-path glances can lead to crashes, interventions are still needed to help drivers better modulate their distraction engagement.

The Influence of Visual-Manual Distractions on Anticipatory Driving

The aim of this study is to investigate how anticipatory driving is influenced by distraction. The anticipation of future events in traffic can allow potential gains in recognition and response times. Anticipatory actions (i.e., control actions in preparation for potential traffic changes) have been found to be more prevalent among experienced drivers in simulator studies when driving was the sole task. Despite the prevalence of visual-manual distractions and their negative effects on road safety, their influence on anticipatory driving has not yet been investigated beyond hazard anticipation. A simulator experiment was conducted with 16 experienced and 16 novice drivers. Half of the participants were provided with a self-paced visual-manual secondary task presented on a dashboard display. More anticipatory actions were observed among experienced drivers; experienced drivers also exhibited more efficient visual scanning behaviors as indicated by higher glance rates toward and percent times looking at cues that facilitate the anticipation of upcoming events. Regardless of experience, those with the secondary task displayed reduced anticipatory actions and paid less attention toward anticipatory cues. However, experienced drivers had lower odds of exhibiting long glances toward the secondary task compared to novices. Further, the inclusion of glance duration on anticipatory cues increased the accuracy of a model predicting anticipatory actions based on on-road glance durations. The results provide additional evidence to existing literature supporting the role of driving experience and distraction engagement in anticipatory driving. These findings can guide the design of in-vehicle systems and guide training programs to support anticipatory driving.

“It is frustrating to not have control even though I know it’s not legal!”: A mixed-methods investigation on applications to prevent mobile phone use while driving

Mobile phone distracted driving is a major risk factor for crashes. However, this behaviour has been increasing in recent years. Effective enforcement of mobile phone bans while driving faces several obstacles; as such, it is important to consider additional countermeasures. Applications designed to prevent distracted driving are a promising solution, yet more research is needed that examines their effectiveness in reducing dangerous phone use while driving behaviours. Additionally, these applications are voluntary in nature; therefore, an understanding of drivers’ perceptions of the applications is necessary to determine how to improve uptake. A mixed methods design was utilised to examine these factors in a comprehensive manner. A total of 40 participants used the smartphone application “Do Not Disturb While Driving” for iOS phone operating systems or “Android Auto” for Android phone operating systems for approximately one week and completed three diary entries reporting on their experience. Two questionnaires that examined phone use while driving behaviours were also administered to participants; one before and one after completing the study. The quantitative results found that engagement in 1) visual-manual, 2) cognitive-auditory and 3) music mobile phone interactions significantly decreased while using the application. Distraction engagement and mental workload while driving also significantly decreased while using the application. The qualitative results identified a number of areas of improvement that need to be addressed, e.g. activation of the application and Bluetooth connection reliability. The features that required improvement presented an obstacle for effective use of the applications, and in some cases resulted in drivers deciding to stop using the application. Positive perceptions of the application were associated with the experiences of the application functioning appropriately and activating automatically. These results show that applications designed for voluntary use to prevent mobile phone distracted driving are a promising countermeasure, although current applications require several improvements.

Mitigating Teen Driver Distraction: In-Vehicle Feedback Based on Peer Social Norms.

To investigate the efficacy of in-vehicle feedback based on peer social norms in mitigating teen driver distraction. Distraction is a significant problem among teen drivers. Research into the use of in-vehicle technologies to mitigate this issue has been limited. In particular, there is a need to study whether social norms interventions provided through in-vehicle feedback can be effective. Peers are important social referents for teens; thus, normative intervention based on this group is promising. Socially proximal referents have a greater influence on behavior; thus, tailoring peer norm feedback based on gender may provide additional benefits. In this study, 57 teens completed a driving simulator experiment while performing a secondary task in three between-subject conditions: (a) postdrive feedback incorporating same-gender peer norms, (b) postdrive feedback incorporating opposite-gender peer norms, and (c) no feedback. Feedback involved information based on descriptive norms (what others do). Teens' self-reported frequency of distraction engagement was positively correlated with their perceptions of their peers' engagement in and approval of distractions. Feedback based on peer norms was effective in reducing distraction engagement and improving driving performance, with no difference between same- and opposite-gender feedback. Feedback based on peer norms can help mitigate driver distraction among teens. Tailoring social norms feedback to teen gender appears to not provide any additional benefits. Longer-term effectiveness in real-world settings should be investigated.

Influence of Driving Experience on Distraction Engagement in Automated Vehicles

State-of-the-art vehicle automation requires drivers to visually monitor the driving environment and the automation (through interfaces and vehicle’s actions) and intervene when necessary. However, as evidenced by recent automated vehicle crashes and laboratory studies, drivers are not always able to step in when the automation fails. Research points to the increase in distraction or secondary-task engagement in the presence of automation as a potential reason. However, previous research on secondary-task engagement in automated vehicles mainly focused on experienced drivers. This issue may be amplified for novice drivers with less driving skill. In this paper, we compared secondary-task engagement behaviors of novice and experienced drivers both in manual (non-automated) and automated driving settings in a driving simulator. A self-paced visual-manual secondary task presented on an in-vehicle display was utilized. Phase 1 of the study included 32 drivers (16 novice) who drove the simulator manually. In Phase 2, another set of 32 drivers (16 novice) drove with SAE-level-2 automation. In manual driving, there were no differences between novice and experienced drivers’ rate of manual interactions with the secondary task (i.e., taps on the display). However, with automation, novice drivers had a higher manual interaction rate with the task than experienced drivers. Further, experienced drivers had shorter average glance durations toward the task than novice drivers in general, but the difference was larger with automation compared with manual driving. It appears that with automation, experienced drivers are more conservative in their secondary-task engagement behaviors compared with novice drivers.

Voluntary- and Involuntary-Distraction Engagement: An Exploratory Study of Individual Differences.

Objective The aim of this study was to explore individual differences in voluntary and involuntary driver-distraction engagement. Background Distractions may stem from intentional engagement in secondary tasks (voluntary) or failing to suppress non-driving-related stimuli or information (involuntary). A wealth of literature has examined voluntary distraction; involuntary distraction is not particularly well understood. Individual factors, such as age, are known to play a role in how drivers engage in distractions. However, it is unclear which individual factors are associated with voluntary- versus involuntary-distraction engagement and whether there is a relation between how drivers engage in these two distraction types. Method Thirty-six participants, ages 25 to 39, drove in a simulator under three conditions: voluntary distraction with a self-paced visual-manual task on a secondary display, involuntary distraction with abrupt onset of irrelevant visual-audio stimuli on the secondary display, and no distraction. Results The number of glances toward the secondary display under voluntary distraction was not correlated to that under involuntary distraction. The former was associated with gender, age, annual mileage, and self-reported distraction engagement; such associations were not observed for the latter. Accelerator release time in response to lead-vehicle braking was delayed similarly under both conditions. Conclusion Propensity to engage in voluntary distractions appears to be not related to the inability of suppressing involuntary distractions. Further, voluntary and involuntary distraction both affect braking response. These findings have implications for design of in-vehicle technologies, which may be sources of both distraction types.

Designing feedback to mitigate teen distracted driving: A social norms approach

ObjectiveThe purpose of this research is to investigate teens’ perceived social norms and whether providing normative information can reduce distracted driving behaviors among them. BackgroundParents are among the most important social referents for teens; they have significant influences on teens’ driving behaviors, including distracted driving which significantly contributes to teens’ crash risks. Social norms interventions have been successfully applied in various domains including driving; however, this approach is yet to be explored for mitigating driver distraction among teens. MethodForty teens completed a driving simulator experiment while performing a self-paced visual-manual secondary task in four between-subject conditions: a) social norms feedback that provided a report at the end of each drive on teens’ distracted driving behavior, comparing their distraction engagement to their parent’s, b) post-drive feedback that provided just the report on teens’ distracted driving behavior without information on their parents, c) real-time feedback in the form of auditory warnings based on eyes of road-time, and d) no feedback as control. Questionnaires were administered to collect data on these teens’ and their parents’ self-reported engagement in driver distractions and the associated social norms. ResultsSocial norms and real-time feedback conditions resulted in significantly smaller average off-road glance duration, rate of long (>2s) off-road glances, and standard deviation of lane position compared to no feedback. Further, social norms feedback decreased brake response time and percentage of time not looking at the road compared to no feedback. No major effect was observed for post-drive feedback. Questionnaire results suggest that teens appeared to overestimate parental norms, but no effect of feedback was found on their perceptions. ConclusionFeedback systems that leverage social norms can help mitigate driver distraction among teens. Overall, both social norms and real-time feedback induced positive driving behaviors, with social norms feedback outperforming real-time feedback.

Simulator Study of Involuntary Driver Distraction Under Different Perceptual Loads

Involuntary distraction, which occurs when driver attention is diverted unintentionally by irrelevant stimuli or events, is often overlooked in experimental studies. The present work explores how involuntary distraction affects individual drivers and whether varying perceptual load in the driving environment modulates involuntary distraction engagement. In a simulator experiment, variability in glance behavior toward irrelevant stimuli was observed among participants, and higher self-reported everyday distractibility scores using the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire were found to be associated with longer glances, but not the number of glances, toward the irrelevant stimuli. These relationships suggest that the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire scale may correlate better with the ability to disengage from a distraction than with the ability to suppress automatic attentional capture. The study also found delayed accelerator release times to lead vehicle braking events in the presence of irrelevant stimuli. The perceptual responses associated with the accelerator release times show that the delay occurred after participants glanced at the brake light, possibly indicating slower processing of information under distraction. Contrary to expectation, perceptual load, manipulated by the simulated road’s visual complexity, did not affect involuntary distraction engagement but directly affected driving performance. Overall, findings reveal potential safety concerns for involuntary driver distraction, but further work is necessary to understand how individuals with different attentional limitations are affected by this distraction type.

Driving under the influence of distraction: Examining dissociations between risk perception and engagement in distracted driving

Driving while distracted is a critical and unwavering problem in the United States leading to numerous injuries and fatalities each year. While increasing legislation and developing technological interventions strive to ensure we only focus on driving, individuals still drive distracted. We surveyed college-aged adults to examine the factors that influence both their risk perception of driving while distracted and how often they engage in distracting activities and situations while driving. We found a disassociation between individuals’ perception of driving distraction risk and their engagement with the distraction. Exposure, perceived knowledge of risks, fairness beliefs, and ratings of perceived visual and cognitive demands was associated with risk perception. Conversely, risk-seeking traits, how voluntary the task was perceived, and previous exposure to a distraction influenced engagement. Overall, we recommend additional research focusing on factors that predict engagement in driver distraction rather than perceived risk alone.

Driving Under Involuntary Distraction and Varied Perceptual Loads

Distracted driving compromises safety. One type of driver distraction often overlooked in experimental studies is involuntary engagement in driver distraction, which is related to an inability to suppress non-driving related information. The present work aims to discern how involuntary distraction affects drivers and whether perceptual load modulates involuntary distraction engagement. It was hypothesized, based on Load Theory, that drivers are worse at inhibiting irrelevant stimuli when driving under lower perceptual load. A simulator experiment manipulating distraction (involuntary vs. baseline) and perceptual load of the environment (high vs. low visual complexity) found that irrelevant stimuli degraded driving responses to lead vehicle braking events. Contrary to expectation, perceptual load did not affect involuntary distraction engagement.

What drives technology-based distractions? A structural equation model on social-psychological factors of technology-based driver distraction engagement

BackgroundWith the proliferation of new mobile and in-vehicle technologies, understanding the motivations behind a driver's voluntary engagement with such technologies is crucial from a safety perspective, yet is complex. Previous literature either surveyed a large number of distractions that may be diverse, or too focuses on one particular activity, such as cell phone use. Further, earlier studies about social-psychological factors underlying driver distraction tend to focus on one or two factors in-depth, and those that examine a more comprehensive set of factors are often limited in their analyses methods. ObjectiveThe present work considers a wide array of social-psychological factors within a structural equation model to predict their influence on a focused set of technology-based distractions. A better understanding of these facilitators can enhance the design of distraction mitigation strategies. MethodWe analysed survey responses about three technology-based driver distractions: holding phone conversations, manually interacting with cell phones, and adjusting the settings of in-vehicle technology, as well as responses on five social-psychological factors: attitude, descriptive norm, injunctive norm, technology inclination, and a risk/sensation seeking personality. Using data collected from 525 drivers (ages: 18–80), a structural equation model was built to analyse these social-psychological factors as latent variables influencing self-reported engagement in these three technology-based distractions. ResultsSelf-reported engagement in technology-based distractions was found to be largely influenced by attitudes about the distractions. Personality and social norms also played a significant role, but technology inclination did not. A closer look at two age groups (18–30 and 30+) showed that the effect of social norms, especially of injunctive norm (i.e., perceived approvals), was less prominent in the 30+ age group, while personality remained a significant predictor for the 30+ age group but marginally significant for the younger group. ConclusionFindings from this work provide insights into the social-psychological factors behind intentional engagement in technology-based distractions and in particular suggesting that these factors may be sensitive to demographic differences.

Self-reported engagement in driver distraction: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Driver distraction is a significant concern for roadway safety. As drivers often engage willingly in secondary tasks, it is crucial to understand the social-psychological factors underlying these behaviours. A useful framework for understanding these factors is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). This paper investigates the efficacy of TPB in predicting self-reported engagement behaviour in a number of distraction tasks through the assessment of attitudes, perceived behavioural control, descriptive norms, and injunctive norms. This work also investigates the relation of self-reported distraction engagement with personality traits and other unsafe driving behaviours. Data collection utilised the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ), which was built with TPB as the framework, as well as the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and various personality questionnaires. A total of 578 drivers, both genders, ages 18+, were surveyed. Self-reported distraction engagement was associated with impulsive, venturesome, and sensation seeking personalities, and with reportedly higher level of unsafe driving behaviours. Further, attitudes, perceived behavioural control, and descriptive norms were found to be significant predictors of self-reported engagement after controlling for age group and gender. Injunctive norms, which describe the perceived expectations of what the driver ought to do, were not significant. Gender was not significant in predicting engagement, but older drivers (60+) reported a marginally lower level of engagement than drivers between the ages of 26 and 39. Our findings demonstrate the usefulness of TPB for analysing self-reported distraction engagement, and suggest that drivers may be more heavily influenced by what other drivers do on the road, rather than what they perceive they ought to do, when it comes to engaging in distractions.

Test–Retest Reliability of the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire

The Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ) investigates voluntary and involuntary factors associated with driver distraction. The questionnaire consists of 39 items in six subscales: (a) self-reported distraction engagement, (b) attitudes toward distractions, (c) perceived control of driving while engaged in distractions, (d) injunctive social norms associated with distraction engagement, (e) descriptive social norms associated with distraction engagement, and (f) susceptibility to involuntary distractions. A sample of 43 adults, ages 25 to 39 years, was used to assess the test–retest reliability of the SDDQ. The mean time between test and retest conditions was approximately 20 days. For sub-scale averages, intraclass correlation (ICC) statistics were used to assess test–retest reliability; weighted kappa statistics were used to assess individual items. The ICC results suggest good to excellent test–retest reliability for subscales of self-reported distraction engagement, attitudes toward distractions, and descriptive social norms. Perceived control of driving while engaged in distractions had fair test–retest reliability, and the injunctive norms and susceptibility to involuntary distraction subscales had poor test–retest reliabilities. The latter two subscales may have to be redesigned; this paper provides relevant suggestions for revision in the discussion of the results. As an additional preliminary analysis, data from a sample of 10 additional participants were used to investigate the consistency of responses across longer periods of time. The mean time between test–retest conditions in this sample was approximately 8 months. In general, the findings were similar to those in the main sample. Overall, the SDDQ appears to have good test–retest reliability. A larger sample is recommended for further validation of these results, in particular across long test–retest periods.

The regulation of fear: the contribution of inhibition and emotion socialisation

In this study, we investigated the contribution of inhibition and maternal socialisation of children's fear to observed emotion regulation during a fear induction. Fifty-three parent–child dyads (Mage = 3.76 years) participated. Parents completed a series of questionnaires, and parent–child dyads were observed during a fear induction. Children's behaviour was coded for latency to approach the fear stimulus, expressions of fear, and regulation of emotion during the fear episode. Inhibition positively predicted orientation to mother and negatively predicted task orientation during the fear episode. In addition, the interaction between inhibition and supportive reactions to fear predicted children's engagement in distraction during the fear episode; the relation between inhibition and distraction was significant when mothers reported high levels of support to children's fear. The results indicated that mothers’ supportive reactions to children's fear bolster their emotion regulatory skills.