Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329

www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Effects of distraction and experience on situation

awareness and simulated driving
a,*
Steven J. Kass , Kerstan S. Cole b, Claudia J. Stanny a

a
University of West Florida, Department of Psychology, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, United States
b
Texas Tech University, Department of Psychology, Lubbock, TX 79409-2051, United States

Received 29 May 2006; received in revised form 6 December 2006; accepted 8 December 2006

Abstract

This study examined the impact of cell phone conversation on situation awareness and performance of novice and expe-
rienced drivers. Driving performance and situation awareness among novice drivers ages 14–16 (n = 25) and experienced
drivers ages 21–52 (n = 26) were assessed using a driving simulator. Performance was measured by the number of driving
infractions committed: speeding, collisions, pedestrians struck, stop signs missed, and centerline and road edge crossings.
Situation awareness was assessed through a query method and through participants’ performance on a direction-following
task. Cognitive distractions were induced through simulated hands-free cell phone conversations. The results indicated that
novice drivers committed more driving infractions and were less situationally aware than their experienced counterparts.
However, the two groups suffered similar decrements in performance during the cell phone condition. This study provides
evidence of the detrimental effects of cell phone use for both novice and experienced drivers. These findings have implica-
tions for supporting driving legislation that limits the use of cell phones (including hands-free) in motor vehicles, regardless
of the driver’s experience level.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Distracted driving; Situation awareness; Attention; Experience level

1. Introduction

Many studies have shown that talking on a cell phone while driving significantly influences driver perfor-
mance. Furthermore, consumers are purchasing cell phones at increasing rates. As the number of cell phone
users increases, the potential health risks also increase not only for those who choose to converse while driv-
ing, but also for passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers (Ferguson, 2003; Lam, 2002; Peters & Peters, 2002).
In an analysis of nearly 700 cell phone-related accidents, Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) concluded that

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 850 474 2107; fax: +1 850 857 6060.
E-mail address: skass@uwf.edu (S.J. Kass).

1369-8478/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.trf.2006.12.002
322 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329

talking on a cell phone increased the probability of a collision between 3 and 6.5 times. They also suggested
that these distraction effects are comparable to a blood–alcohol-content above the legal limit. In fact, Strayer,
Drews, and Crouch (2006) found that in a driving simulation task, cell phone users showed greater impair-
ments as measured by increased number of rear-end collisions and time required to regain speed following
braking than drivers who were legally drunk (i.e., blood–alcohol-content of 0.08). Additionally, Strayer
and Johnston (2001) reported that drivers engaged in cell phone conversations missed twice as many traffic
signals and had slower reaction times. Consiglio, Driscoll, Witte, and Berg (2003) also found that cell phone
use (hand-held or hands-free) slowed drivers’ braking reactions compared to when they drove without distrac-
tion or when listening to music on the radio.

1.1. Role of situation awareness in driving

Research on situation awareness (SA) is often traced back to military aviation studies, but SA is crucial to
the performance of any dynamic complex task, including driving in heavy traffic (Endsley, 1995). SA involves
identifying relevant environmental stimuli or cues, integrating that information into the operator’s knowledge
base to form a mental model or representation of the situation, and using that representation to project the
occurrence of events in the near future (see Dominguez, 1994; Endsley, 1990; Kass, Herschler, & Companion,
1991). As drivers move through the environment, they must identify the relevant information in rapidly
changing traffic patterns (e.g., distance to other vehicles, closing speed) and be prepared to react to events
that may occur (e.g., car backing out of driveway, stop sign) to avoid accidents. To achieve SA, individuals
must rely on perception and pattern recognition abilities (Durso & Gronlund, 1999; Kass et al., 1991), atten-
tion and working memory (Gugerty, 1997; Wickens & Hollands, 2000), as well as long-term memory (e.g.,
Endsley, 1995). Therefore, cognitive distractions that tax a driver’s attention or memory load may adversely
impact SA.
Recently, researchers (e.g., Beede & Kass, 2006; Garcia-Larrea, Perchet, Perrin, & Amendo, 2001;
McKnight & McKnight, 1993; Recarte & Nunes, 2003) have provided empirical evidence that driving perfor-
mance suffers as a result of such cognitive distractions as cell phone use. These distractions may become par-
ticularly important safety issues when motorists are navigating through changing traffic patterns while
attempting to maintain SA. Attention and hazard detection, aspects of SA, are known to be adversely affected
by the cognitive distractions of cell phone conversation (Strayer & Johnston, 2001).

1.2. Experience level and situation awareness

Research on risk exposure of younger drivers indicates that they are more likely to speed, pull into smaller
gaps in traffic, and glance away from the road for longer intervals than experienced drivers (see Ferguson,
2003; Strayer & Drews, 2004; Underwood, Crundall, & Chapman, 2002). Crundall and Underwood (1998)
investigated the differences in spatial strategy between novice and experienced drivers under different road
conditions by examining participants’ visual attention. Experienced drivers employed a more flexible form
of spatial strategy, such as searching for alternative routes, while novice drivers had rigid spatial strategies
and usually focused on the one possible strategy that their visual search allowed. Lacking experience, novice
drivers may not have learned to cope with the cognitive load imposed by complex road conditions while simul-
taneously attending to the overall demands of the driving task. This may result in a loss of SA and an inability
to avoid collisions resulting in injury or death.
The current experiment was designed to test the hypothesis that cell phone conversations disrupt SA
and impair driving performance by preventing drivers from attending to situation-relevant stimuli such
as speed limit postings, stop signs, pedestrians, and other traffic. These failings should manifest themselves
in terms of increased driving infractions and an inability to take on an additional task (direction follow-
ing). Prior research suggests that practice effects (e.g., Ferguson, 2003; Strayer & Drews, 2004), mental
models (e.g., Langham, Hole, & Edwards, 2002), and flexible spatial strategies (e.g., Crundall & Under-
wood, 1998) developed through experience enhance operators’ performance. Thus, experience level was
expected to mitigate some of the decrements in driving performance and SA associated with cell phone
conversations.
 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329 323

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Two groups of participants were recruited for this study and classified as either novice (not yet licensed) or
experienced drivers. The novice group consisted of 24 students (12 girls, 12 boys) recruited from a high school
driver’s education class in northwest Florida. These students had completed 10 weeks of class instruction. Par-
ents or legal guardians granted informed consent for their children to participate. The student drivers’ ages
ranged from 14 to 16 years (14.68, SD = 0.56). The experienced driver group consisted of 25 adults (12
men, 13 women) ages 21–52 years (M = 29.0, SD = 8.94) recruited from the local community. These partic-
ipants ranged in driving experience from 6 to 34 years (M = 13.69, SD = 8.22). Because the driving simulator
may seem similar to a video game, we asked the participants to identify how may hours per week they played
video games (on the following scale: 0 h, 1–5 h, 6–10 h, etc.). The median response for the younger, novice
group of drivers was that they played video games for 6–10 h/week whereas the median response for the expe-
rienced group was 0 h/week. Neither group was engaged in extensive video game play, though a slight advan-
tage may be suggested for the novice group when using the simulator.

2.2. Apparatus

The STISIM-Drive simulator software, developed by Systems Technology Inc., was used to measure and
document participants’ driving behaviors. The software simulates a vehicle with an automatic transmission
and receives inputs from a game controller steering wheel, accelerator, and brake pedal. A 61 cm (24 in.)
LCD monitor mounted on a desktop displayed the city roadway scenes. Additionally, STISIM models
speed-sensitive steering and provides finely detailed, dynamic representations of various driving tasks and
objects (e.g., buildings, pedestrians, vehicles, signs and signal lights) providing the researchers with full control
in customizing scenarios. Though the experimental configuration is a desktop computer simulation, the high
speed, detailed graphics (i.e., texture, shading, and lighting) and experimenter-configured vehicle control
dynamics (i.e., steering, braking) are identical to those used by higher-end simulator systems. Furthermore,
the software provides visual and auditory feedback and records such driver performance data as the number
of stop signs missed, pedestrians struck, speeding occurrences, off-road excursions, and centerline crossings, as
well as the capability to playback a participant’s completed scenario.

3. Materials

3.1. SA questions

At varying intervals during the simulation, the participants’ SA was assessed using a query method (Ends-
ley, 1988a, 1988b) in which the experimenters stopped the simulator and asked the participant relevant ques-
tions about the scene. In the current experiment, participants were asked a total of nine SA questions that
pertained to the task of driving (e.g., ‘‘what is the speed limit?’’ ‘‘how many cars backed out in front of
you?’’). All participants received the same nine questions, but in random order, and all were relevant to driving
awareness. The questions were presented in random order so that the difficulty of a particular question was
not related to the difficulty of a particular portion of the driving course.

3.2. Simulated cellular phone conversations

Because recent research indicates that the detrimental effects of hand-held cell phones and hands-free cell
phones are similar (Strayer & Johnston, 2001), all participants in the distracter condition wore headphones
with a mouth-piece and were instructed to ‘‘answer the hands-free cell phone when it rings by saying hello
clearly into the mouth piece.’’ Previously recorded questions (wav files) were used in this condition to simulate
the cell phone conversation (Beede & Kass, 2006). Questions were presented at irregular intervals to allow time
for responses and to simulate a naturalistic setting. These questions were purposely developed to produce
324 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329

cognitive distractions and required participants to visualize their answers (e.g., asking for directions to a par-
ticular place, visualizing the number of windows in their home, and computing simple arithmetic problems).
These demanding questions were combined with other questions and statements to create a naturally flowing
conversation. In order to ensure that participants would actively engage in the phone conversation, they were
told that their responses were being recorded (they actually were not).

3.3. Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the hands-free cell phone distracter condi-
tion or the no distracter condition. Participants were instructed to pay attention to environmental stimuli such
as cross-traffic and pedestrians and to obey all traffic laws. In order to assess SA in a naturalistic manner and
to simulate real-world driving behaviors, experimenters implemented a direction-following task in a 5-min
practice scenario and also in the experimental scenario. During the practice scenario, participants were given
a typed set of directions and attempted to follow those directions to the destination.
After participants completed the practice scenario, experimenters gave participants a different set of typed
directions and asked them to read over the directions before driving. For example, participants were instructed
as follows: ‘‘At the second light, take a left at the gas station.’’ Participants were allowed to refer back to the
instructions at any time. If a turn was missed, the error was recorded and the driver continued to follow the
directions. The street scenes presented by the simulation followed the driver (regardless of actual turns made),
so that all drivers saw the same scenes even if they did not make the same turns. As a result, drivers did not
need to retrace a route to correct for missed turns and were not instructed to do so. The driver could miss one
turn without missing any of the remaining turns in the route (five turns total). During three irregularly spaced
intervals, the simulator paused and the experimenter asked three SA questions chosen at random from the list
of nine and asked participants to answer these questions to the best of their ability. The experimental driving
scenarios lasted approximately 11–12 min.

3.4. Design and analysis

The experiment consisted of a 2 (novices vs. experienced) · 2 (cell phone vs. no distracter) between subjects
factorial design. The dependent variables measured were the numbers of various driving infractions and scores
on the two measures of situation awareness. Driving infraction data collected by the simulator included: num-
ber of collisions, number of pedestrians hit, number of speeding violations (8 kph or 5 mph over speed limit),
number of stop signs missed, and errors of lane maintenance (i.e., centerline crossings and road-edge excur-
sions). Situation awareness was measured by assessing the total number of SA questions participants answered
correctly and by the number of turns missed while following the driving directions. The driving conditions
consisted of a hands-free cellular phone condition and a no distracter control condition.

4. Results

4.1. Driving infractions

To control for experiment-wide error rate associated with conducting multiple analyses of variance
(ANOVA) on the 6 different driving infraction variables, a multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was performed.
The dependent variables analyzed included the number of collisions, pedestrians hit, speeding violations, stop
signs missed, centerline crossings, and road-edge excursions. Fig. 1 presents the means for the total number of
infractions made by novices and experienced drivers across conditions. The MANOVA indicated significant
main effects of experience level (F(6, 42) = 16.20, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.48) and cell phone use
(F(6, 42) = 9.60, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.34). No significant interaction was found (F(6, 42) = 1.54,
p = 0.19, partial x2 = 0.03), suggesting that when drivers use a cell phone they suffer the same amount of per-
formance decrement regardless of experience level.
Because MANOVA main effects of experience level and cell phone use were found, the univariate analyses
of the six dependent variables were examined. These analyses revealed that novice drivers were involved in
 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329 325

Fig. 1. Driving infractions.

significantly more collisions with other vehicles (Mnov = 2.12, SD = 0.97 vs. Mexp = 1.12, SD = 0.95;
F(1, 47) = 15.28, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.12), drove through significantly more stop signs (Mnov = 1.52,
SD = 0.87 vs. Mexp = 0.27, SD = 0.45; F(1, 47) = 42.60, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.29), and crossed the center-
line significantly more often (Mnov = 1.64, SD = 1.75 vs. Mexp = 0.62, SD = 0.85; F(1, 47) = 6.66, p < 0.05,
partial x2 = 0.05). No significant effects of experience were found for the number of pedestrians struck
(Mnov = 1.08, SD = 1.00 vs. Mexp = 0.69, SD = 0.84; F(1, 47) = 2.07, p > 0.05, partial x2 = 0.01), speeding
violations (Mnov = 4.60, SD = 2.27 vs. Mexp = 3.81, SD = 1.88; F(1, 47) = 1.68, p > 0.05, partial x2 = 0.01),
or road-edge excursions (Mnov = 0.56, SD = 0.82 vs. Mexp = 0.31, SD = 0.62; F(1, 47) = 1.41, p > 0.05, partial
x2 = 0.00). Not surprisingly, these results suggest that experienced drivers had a clear performance advantage
in the driving simulator environment even when they reported less experience with video games.
The impact of the cell phone conversation on driving performance was elucidated by the following univar-
iate results. Drivers in the cell phone condition were involved in significantly more collisions with other vehi-
cles (Mcell = 2.04, SD = 0.89 vs. Mctrl = 1.19, SD = 1.10; F(1, 47) = 10.39, p < 0.01, partial x2 = 0.09), struck
more pedestrians (Mcell = 1.28, SD = 0.98 vs. Mctrl = 0.50, SD = 0.70; F(1, 47) = 10.14, p < 0.01, partial
x2 = 0.08), exceeded the posted speed limits more frequently (Mcell = 5.24, S.D = 1.94 vs. Mctrl = 3.19,
SD = 1.74; F(1, 47) = 15.16, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.12), and drove through more stop signs (Mcell = 1.12,
SD = 1.01 vs. Mctrl = 0.65, SD = 0.80; F(1, 47) = 4.43, p < 0.05, partial x2 = 0.03). Cell phone use did not sig-
nificantly impact the number of times drivers crossed the centerline (Mcell = 1.36, SD = 1.75 vs. Mctrl = 0.88,
SD = 1.07; F(1, 47) = 1.16, p > 0.05, partial x2 = 0.00), or the number of times they drove off the road
(Mcell = 0.52, SD = 0.65 vs. Mctrl = 0.35, SD = 0.80; F(1, 47) = 0.59, p > 0.05, partial x2 = 0.00).

4.2. SA questions

Fig. 2 presents the total number of SA questions answered correctly as a function of driver experience and
distraction condition. The experienced group of drivers (M = 7.54, SD = 1.42) correctly answered significantly
more questions than did the novice drivers (M = 4.76, SD = 2.18; F(1, 47) = 44.90, p < 0.001, partial
x2 = 0.46). The effect of the cell phone conversation was evident in that drivers who were engaged in conver-
sation (M = 4.88, SD = 1.83) answered significantly fewer questions correctly than did those in the control
condition (M = 7.42, SD = 2.00; F(1, 47) = 36.80, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.41). The experience level by dis-
tracter interaction was not significant (F(1, 47) = 0.00, p > 0.05, partial x2 = 0.00).
326 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329

Fig. 2. SA questions.

4.3. Turns missed

The ability to follow a set of driving directions was also used as an indicator of situation awareness (see
Fig. 3). Novices were less able to follow directions and missed an average of 2.40 turns (SD = 1.73) whereas
experienced drivers missed an average of just over one turn during the driving scenario (M = 1.11, SD = 1.11;
F(1, 47) = 16.32, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.23). The distraction of the cell phone also reduced drivers’ ability to
follow directions (F(1, 47) = 43.57, p < 0.001, partial x2 = 0.45). Drivers not distracted by the cell phone
missed, on average, less than one turn (M = 0.77, SD = 0.95) whereas drivers engaged in conversation missed
2.76 turns (SD = 1.45). Further, the ANOVA indicated a small, but significant interaction of experience and
distracter conditions (F(1, 47) = 4.19, p < 0.05, partial x2 = 0.06). Novices missed an average of 1.08 turns
(SD = 1.16) in the control condition and an average of 3.62 turns (SD = 1.19) in the cell phone condition.

Fig. 3. Missed turns.

 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329 327

Alternatively, experienced drivers had little difficulty in the control condition, missing an average of only 0.50
turns (SD = 0.65), but again, those in the cell phone condition made more than three times as many errors
(M = 1.83, SD = 1.11). A Tukey HSD revealed that experienced drivers in the cell phone condition missed
significantly more turns than when they were not talking on a cell phone. Thus, while the effect of the cell
phone was slightly greater for novice drivers, experience did not fully mitigate the detrimental effects of cell
phone use on SA in terms of the ability to follow a printed set of driving directions.

5. Discussion

This study examined the distracting effects of cell phone conversations on SA while driving and whether
drivers with greater levels of experience would be less impaired. In the simulated drive, novices were involved
in more collisions, drove through more stop signs, and crossed the centerline more often, but did not differ
from experienced drivers on the number of pedestrians struck, speed limits obeyed, or road departures. Cell
phone usage impaired novice drivers’ ability to attend to many relevant environmental stimuli, such as other
vehicles (collisions), pedestrians, and speed limit and stop signs, but did not alter horizontal lane maintenance
behaviors (crossing road edge or centerline). This is consistent with a recent meta-analysis by Horrey and Wic-
kens (2006) that showed that the impact of cell phone use on lane-keeping performance was much smaller than
its impact on response time to critical road stimuli. Horrey and Wickens suggested that lane keeping may be a
relatively automatic skill requiring fewer cognitive resources.
Participants’ scores on the SA measures showed that engagement in conversation decreased drivers’ ability
to cope with the simultaneous demands of driving and following directions. Essentially, when participants
talked on the cell phone they were unable to maintain the same level of SA (as assessed by either a query
method or direction-following task) as other drivers. One explanation for this finding is that the cell phone
conversation and the act of driving taxed the same cognitive resources. For example, the cognitive distractions
produced by the cell phone conversations may have interfered with the driver’s ability to navigate through the
simulated scene. While the addition of the cell phone conversation was designed to increase the driver’s cog-
nitive workload, future research may address the driver’s perceptions of increased workload. That is, research-
ers may wish to assess whether drivers continue to engage in distracting tasks because they believe that these
tasks do not significantly increase their workload levels, and therefore do not impact their ability to drive.
Moreover, the results demonstrated that both novice and experienced drivers suffered decrements in perfor-
mance when talking on a cell phone. Even experienced drivers could not cope with the cognitive demands of
cell phone conversations. Only on the direction-following task was the performance decrement caused by cell
phone use slightly greater for novices than for experienced drivers. When conversing on a cell phone, experi-
enced drivers’ overall performance (in terms of driving infractions) was equivalent to that of non-distracted
novice drivers.
The finding that experience does not mitigate the distracting effects of cell phone conversation has impor-
tant implications for traffic safety issues. Experienced drivers continue to talk and drive, perhaps because they
are unaware of the potential risks involved when talking on a cell phone. Essentially, drivers may be unaware
that they are inattentive to various environmental stimuli due to the cognitive distraction induced by the cell
phone (see Lesch & Hancock, 2004). Consequently, cell phone-distracted drivers may be both situationally
unaware and perhaps overconfident about their performance.
Some caution should be taken when generalizing from the current results. The lack of motion cues and the
artificiality of the situation may have affected driving behavior. For instance, although participants were
instructed to obey all traffic laws, they suffered no repercussions from their violations or from collisions.
On the other hand, for each type of driving infraction (excluding speeding violations) experienced drivers
in the control group committed an average of less than one infraction suggesting that they took the instruc-
tions seriously. Although the artificial environment of the simulator was an obvious limitation of the study,
Horrey and Wickens (2006) found that the effects of cell phone use on driving performance have been, on
average, greater in field studies than in simulator studies.
Interpretation of the results concerning the effects of experience should also be tempered by the fact that
novice drivers in the current study were much younger than their experienced counterparts. Because of
the age difference between groups, one cannot conclude that experience alone, and not age, was the only
328 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329

contributing factor in the performance differences. The novice group, consisting of 14–16-year old high school
students, could not be expected to possess the same level of cognitive ability as the experienced group with an
average age of 29. Ideally, the two groups would be matched for age, but the difficulty of recruiting novice
drivers from the local area within the same age range of the experienced group made that sampling strategy
a very remote possibility. Future researchers may wish to address this issue by controlling for the factors of
age and cognitive ability in studies of situation awareness in distracted driving.
While many states in the US have enacted laws against hand-held cell phone use while driving, it remains
unknown whether these laws have decreased cell phone use or traffic accidents. Perhaps the best approach to
preventing cell phone use among drivers is to address the issue through training rather than legislation. Studies
such as the current one can be used to discourage cell phone use among young drivers. This study demon-
strated that safety is compromised even after drivers gain years of experience, and that this decreased perfor-
mance is a normal result of overtaxing one’s attention resources rather than an indictment of personal driving
skill. Hopefully, drivers’ education programs will help young drivers make the right choice about whether to
talk on the cell phone while they drive and maintain that behavior throughout their lifetimes.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to Dr. Ben Lawson and the Naval Aerospace Medical Re-
search Laboratory for the use of their driving simulator equipment.

References

Beede, K. E., & Kass, S. J. (2006). Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 38, 415–421.
Consiglio, W., Driscoll, P., Witte, M., & Berg, W. P. (2003). Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on
reaction time in a braking response. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 495–500.
Crundall, D. E., & Underwood, G. (1998). Effects of experience and processing demands on visual information acquisition in drivers.
Ergonomics, 48, 448–458.
Dominguez, C. (1994). Can SA be defined?. In M. Vidulich, C. Dominguez, E. Vogl, & G. McMillan (Eds.), Situation awareness: Papers
and annotated bibliography (pp. 5–15). AL/CF-TR-1994-0085. Armstrong Laboratory.
Durso, F. T., & Gronlund, S. D. (1999). Situation awareness. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, R. W. Schvaneveldt, S. T. Dumais, D. S.
Lindsay, & M. T. H. Chi (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 283–314). New York: Wiley.
Endsley, M. (1988a). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the human factors society 32nd annual
meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Endsley, M. (1988b). Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT). In Proceedings of the national aerospace and
electronics conference (pp. 41–45). Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Endsley, M. (1990). Predictive validity of an objective measure of situation awareness. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34,
41–45.
Endsley, M. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
Ferguson, S. (2003). Other high risk factors for young drivers—how graduated licensing does, doesn’t, or could address them. Journal of
Safety Research, 34, 71–77.
Garcia-Larrea, L., Perchet, C., Perrin, F., & Amendo, E. (2001). Interference of cellular phone conversations with visuomotor tasks: An
ERP study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15, 14–21.
Gugerty, L. J. (1997). Situation awareness during driving: Explicit and implicit knowledge in dynamic spatial memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 42–66.
Horrey, W. J., & Wickens, C. D. (2006). Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meet-analytic techniques.
Human Factors, 48, 196–205.
Kass, S. J., Herschler, D. A., & Companion, M. A. (1991). Training situational awareness through pattern recognition in a battlefield
environment. Military Psychology, 3, 105–112.
Lam, L. T. (2002). Distractions and the risk of car-crash injury: The effect of driver’s age. Journal of Safety Research, 33, 411–419.
Langham, M., Hole, G., & Edwards, J. (2002). An analysis of ‘‘looked but failed to see’’ accidents involving parked police vehicles.
Ergonomics, 45, 167–185.
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, 471–480.
McKnight, A. J., & McKnight, A. S. (1993). The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25,
259–265.
Peters, G. A., & Peters, B. J. (2002). The distracted driver. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 121, 23–28.
 S.J. Kass et al. / Transportation Research Part F 10 (2007) 321–329 329

Recarte, M. A., & Nunes, L. M. (2003). Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision-making.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 119–137.
Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England
Journal of Medicine, 226, 453–458.
Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers.
Human Factors, 46, 640–649.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48,
381–391.
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual–task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular phone.
Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.
Underwood, G., Crundall, D., & Chapman, P. (2002). Selective searching while driving: The role of experience in hazard detection and
general surveillance. Ergonomics, 45, 1–12.
Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.