Mindfulness predicts less texting while driving among young adults: Examining attention- and emotion-regulation motives as potential mediators

Simmons College, Boston MA.
Personality and Individual Differences (Impact Factor: 1.86). 11/2011; 51(7):856-861. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many young adult drivers read and send text messages while driving despite clear safety risks. Understanding predictors of texting-while-driving may help to indentify relevant targets for interventions to reduce this dangerous behavior. The present study examined whether individual differences in mindfulness is associated with texting-while-driving in a sample of young-adult drivers. Using path analysis, we tested whether this relationship would be mediated by the degree to which individuals use text-messaging as a means of reducing unpleasant emotions (emotion-regulation motives) and the degree to which individuals limit texting in order to focus on present-moment experiences (attention-regulation motives). Individuals lower in mindfulness reported more frequent texting-while-driving and this relationship appeared to be mediated primarily by emotion-regulation motives. Results may help inform the development of mindfulness-based interventions to prevent texting-while-driving.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Based on the dual process model of human cognition, this study investigated the influence of dispositional mindfulness on operators’ safety behaviors and its boundary conditions. In a sample of 212 nuclear power plant control room operators, it was found that both safety compliance and safety participation behaviors were positively influenced by dispositional mindfulness as measured by the 14-item Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. This effect was still positive after controlling for age, intelligence, work experience and conscientiousness. Moreover, two boundary conditions were identified: the impact of dispositional mindfulness of safety behaviors was stronger among operators who were either more experienced or more intelligent. Theoretically, the framework we used to understand the benefit of mindfulness on safety behaviors has been proved to be useful. Practically, it provides a new and valid criterion that could be used in operators’ selection and training program to improve organizational safety.
    Accident; analysis and prevention 09/2014; 70:24–32. DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.03.006 · 1.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A sample of 158 male and 357 female college students at a midwestern university participated in an on-line study of psychosocial motives for texting while driving. Men and women did not differ in self-reported ratings of how often they texted while driving. However, more women sent texts of less than a sentence while more men sent texts of 1–5 sentences. More women than men said they would quit texting while driving due to police warnings, receiving information about texting dangers, being shown graphic pictures of texting accidents, and being in a car accident. A hierarchical regression for men’s data revealed that lower levels of feeling distracted by texting while driving (20% of the variance), higher levels of cell phone dependence (11.5% of the variance), risky behavioral tendencies (6.5% of the variance) and impulsivity (2.3%) of the variance) were significantly associated with more texting while driving (total model variance = 42%). A separate regression for women revealed that higher levels of cell phone dependence (10.4% of the variance), risky behavioral tendencies (9.9% of the variance), texting distractibility (6.2%), crash risk estimates (2.2% of the variance) and driving confidence (1.3% of the variance) were significantly associated with more texting while driving (total model variance = 31%.) Friendship potential and need for intimacy were not related to men’s or women’s texting while driving. Implications of the results for gender-specific prevention strategies are discussed.
    Accident Analysis & Prevention 11/2014; 74. DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.10.001 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Mobile Media & Communication 01/2016;

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014