Unsafe Texting and Socially Problematic Texting ...

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting - 2015

971

Unsafe Texting and Socially Problematic Texting: Need for Cognition as an Underlying Predictor Shannon K.T. Bailey, Bradford L. Schroeder, & Valerie K. Sims University of Central Florida, Psychology Department As texting becomes the dominant medium for communication, problematic and unsafe texting habits arise. Understanding who is more likely to engage in problematic texting can give insight into the underlying traits driving these behaviors. The current exploratory study investigated the extent to which texting habits were correlated with an individual difference measure, the Need for Cognition scale. Results indicated endorsement of certain texting behaviors is inversely related to an individual’s need for cognition, or the extent to which a person enjoys and engages in thinking. In particular, texting behaviors related to safety (e.g., texting while walking), avoidance texting (e.g., texting while in a new place), negative behaviors (e.g., texting to insult or gossip), and health (e.g., waking up to respond to texts) were correlated negatively with stronger need for cognition. These and other texting behaviors have human factors implications of health, safety, and interpersonal relations.

Copyright 2015 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931215591279

INTRODUCTION Communication through text messaging (“texting”) is a widely popular social behavior, particularly in young adults (Harley, Winn, Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007; Haste, 2005; Lister, 2010). Texting is the preferred method of communication in this age group, bypassing phone calls, email, face-to-face communication, and instant messaging (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010). As the prevalence of texting continues to increase over time (Ling, 2010), it is important to better understand whether “types” of texting behavior exist (e.g., unsafe or problematic texting habits) and if these behaviors can be consistently predicted by individual differences. In the emerging study of individual differences and texting habits, some traits have been linked to sets of texting habits. For example, research has shown a link between the personality trait of sensation seeking and the unsafe use of cell phones while driving (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013). Concerns over texting habits are not just limited to the domain of safety, but also include problematic texting. Texting at the movie theater is one such problematic texting behavior, which has been linked to lower cognitive wisdom (Schroeder & Sims, 2014). It is interesting to note that those individuals who endorsed texting at a movie theater were also more likely to endorse texting while driving, indicating that problematic and unsafe texting behaviors may be linked and possibly predicted by individual differences. The current study aims to uncover whether additional individual differences, such as the need for cognition, are related to texting behaviors. An individual difference that has not been studied as it relates to texting behaviors is the predisposition to enjoy and engage in thinking. This intrinsic motivation for mental effort has been assessed by the Need for Cognition scale (NFC; Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984). In previous work, the NFC scale has predicted an individual’s propensity to take risks (Meertens & Lion, 2008). A person is more likely to take risks if they have a lower need for cognition, which we propose may manifest in unsafe texting behaviors. Need for cognition is also strongly correlated with higher conscientiousness (Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997). It follows

that a lower need for cognition may also be related to problematic or negative texting (e.g., texting to gossip or insult). The need for cognition predicts risk taking and negative tendencies and is likely to have an effect on texting behaviors reflecting those characteristics. Safety and Health Issues of Texting Although much research has shown the dangers of texting while driving (Drews, Yazdani, Godfrey, Cooper, & Strayer, 2009), other unsafe texting behaviors have been less studied. Texting while walking has recently been pinpointed as a safety concern because it increases the likelihood the pedestrian will be struck by a vehicle (Schwebel, et al., 2012). The need for cognition involves being more cognitively aware and risk averse, suggesting that higher need for cognition may contribute to a greater awareness of safety as it relates to texting behaviors. Additionally, the texting habit of waking up to respond to texts may negatively affect one’s sleeping pattern and impact health (Thomée, Härenstam, & Hagberg, 2011). Our previous work (Schroeder & Sims, 2014) indicated that 34% of young adults wake from sleep to respond to text messages. If 1/3 of people regularly wake up to text, this is a potentially significant health issue. People who wake up to respond to texts may be unaware of the potential adverse effects on their mental and physical health. Determining who is likely to engage in unsafe or unhealthy texting can help direct future efforts to curb these texting habits. Socially Problematic Texting As with other forms of communication, texting may be used in a socially problematic way, such as to gossip about or insult someone. Negative texting behaviors have the potential to create interpersonal problems that could impact a number of social settings. Previous research has shown that the Need for Cognition scale is inversely related to conscientiousness (Sadowski & Cogburn, 1997), which may also be related to negative texting behaviors. Other aspects of problematic texting that could be related to need for cognition include

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at University of Central Florida Libraries on February 17, 2016

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting - 2015

texting during movies or texting to cheat on a test, among other habits that show a lack of forethought for social acceptability. Avoidance Texting Texting to avoid social interactions could also be a detrimental texting behavior. These avoidance texting habits include texting to avoid having a conversation, while eating dinner with a group, or in new situations with unfamiliar people. These texting behaviors may essentially remove the individual mentally from the social situation; however, these avoidance texting habits may have the ill effect of stifling social interactions. It stands to reason that avoiding cognitive engagement may also be related to avoidance texting. Furthermore, texting to avoid boredom may also be related to an aversion to thinking, such as texting while waiting in line or while eating alone. In fact, a negative association between proneness to boredom and need for cognition is well known (Seib & Vodanovich, 1998; Vodanovich, 2003; Watt & Blanchard, 1997). Very little is empirically understood about how people use texting to avoid social interactions or introspection and how these habits affect everyday life. A better understanding of how people text and who does what kinds of texting is a new area of research in need of more investigation. THE CURRENT RESEARCH The Current Study Unsafe and problematic texting are for a large part understudied, particularly in relation to what factors contribute to differences in texting habits. We suggest one factor influencing texting behavior is the need for cognition. The current study explores the propensity of individuals to enjoy the process of thinking and related texting habits. The novel approach of this work is to extend research with individual differences into the domain of problematic texting habits. Purpose Statement The objective of this study is to provide an exploratory investigation of how individual differences are related to texting behaviors, and how they can be examined to better understand a complex behavior such as texting. Specifically, the individual difference we will examine is Need for Cognition – a scale that assesses an individual’s enjoyment from mental effort. The texting behaviors under investigation include unsafe and problematic texting, as well as texting habits that have not been previously investigated to a large extent. We also provide human factors considerations for these less-researched texting behaviors and justify their need for further research.

972

METHOD Participants Data were collected from 242 participants who volunteered to complete the surveys for class credit. Participants were 132 females, 108 males, and 1 participant who preferred not to disclose gender. The participants’ ages ranged from 18 – 28 years (M=20.43, SD=2.45). Sixty percent of the participants described their ethnicity as White (NonHispanic), 22% described their ethnicity as Hispanic, 8% described their ethnicity as African-American, 6% described their ethnicity as Asian, and 3% described their ethnicity as “Other” (participants were permitted to select multiple options to more accurately describe their ethnic background). Ninetyseven percent of the participants reported that their cell phone plan featured unlimited texting, only two participants reported that they did not text, and 91% indicated they texted “Often” or “Very Often.” Participants were treated according to American Psychological Association ethical guidelines for empirical research. Materials A self-report texting survey was designed specifically for this study after expanding on previous work by Schroeder & Sims (2014). There were 65 items that assessed various texting behaviors (e.g., “how often do you text …while walking somewhere alone?”, “…while watching a movie at the theater,” “…while bored?”). Each item was rated on a 6point scale to indicate the frequency of each texting habit, from “Not Applicable” to “Very Often.” The Need for Cognition scale (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984) is an 18-item measure indicating the extent to which an individual engages in and enjoys thinking. An example item is to rate agreement with the statement, “The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.” Participants rate the items on a 9-point scale from “Very Strong Agreement” to “Very Strong Disagreement.” The items are summed such that higher scores indicate stronger need for cognition. The lowest possible score is -72 and the highest possible score is +72. Procedure Participants were recruited through the university’s research participation system for undergraduate students. The study was presented online. After accessing the survey link from the research participation system, participants were presented with an informed consent form. Participants provided their consent prior to continuing to the study. Participants then completed surveys assessing demographic information, texting habits, and surveys including the Need for Cognition scale. The present analysis of the Need for Cognition scale is a subset of a larger study. Participants received class credit for research participation.

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at University of Central Florida Libraries on February 17, 2016

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting - 2015

RESULTS The Need for Cognition scale was normally distributed (S-W=0.996, p=0.782) and reliable (Cronbach’s α=0.892) with a median score of 10 (SD=19.68), minimum score of -48, and maximum score of +64. The Need for Cognition scale was not correlated with frequency of texting (r=-0.051, p=0.43). In an exploratory investigation of the relationship between scores on the Need for Cognition scale and endorsement of texting habits, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted. Only participants who completed all of the Need for Cognition scale and the individual texting habits were included in the correlation analyses (n=231). Due to the exploratory nature of the study, we investigated a list of 65 texting habits but used a more conservative significance cutoff (p