Experiment At A Small Midwestern University

Finally, the third condition is for each driver to drink alcohol, take a police monitored Breathalyzer test, and then drive the course. At the end of the experiment, the researchers come up with the conclusion that driving using a cell phone is just as dangerous as drunk driving. Although, to make to the study’s results more accurate, the Mythbusters would need to observe more people to draw a more precise conclusion. There is not enough statistical power to confirm which variable is more dangerous. Furthermore, during this study, there were extraneous variables that could have influenced the results. For example, Jamie was purposefully trying to make driving difficult for the person in the car. Also, between the two drivers, one could have a higher tolerance for alcohol, making that person’s score on the driving test better. Another extraneous variable is that the participants themselves could be bias because they, in addition to the other experimenters, want to prove how dangerous it can be to use a cell phone

The participants are college students, which include fifty-nine females and thirteen males (Darley & Latane, 1968) from New York University. In this study intercom system equipment is used, which records the participants discussion through the usage of a microphone. The participants were anonymous as they were placed in separate individual room. The participants were asked to share their college life problems to strangers. First the subjects were requested to provide some background information about their life before explaning their problems. Then the subject(s) discussed their problems in turns, while one of the subject manifested a seizure. The experimenter recorder the time and the speed the subjects took to report the emergency. The results of this study was that the larger the group size becomes the less respoblilty is shown by the subjects with slower reaction rate. The experimenters stated, “The victim is considerably more likely to have gotten help from one or two observers than from five during the first minute of the fit (Darley & Latane,

Studies have shown that when under the influence of alcohol, drivers are not able to respond to stimuli as quickly as when they are sober. An individual needs more time to respond to situations and hazards. If someone is driving a car, the perception of distance is increased. For example, in an ordinary scenario, a driver would be able to respond to

So as long as I’ve been driving I’ve always recalled my mother’s voice saying, “Don’t drink and drive. Sleep at a friend’s house or pay for a taxi. Don’t Do It echoing in the back of my head.” So imagine my surprise when I found out that “driver distraction is actually more important now than critical crash factors such as fatigue, drug ingestion and alcohol intoxication”. According to John Lee, author of Driver Distraction and Inattention: Advances in Research and Countermeasures, “Road vehicle crashes are predicted to become the third largest cause of death and injury globally by 2020”.

Mythbusters presented a hypothesis that a person driving while on the phone is just as dangerous as one drunk. They ran several test to try and solve their belief of which would affect the driver the most. They had two subjects for their testings, a male and a female. They both were asked to preform a series of tasks while driving like normal. They were made to complete it three different times. Once like normal, and the others either on the phone or intoxicated. The constant of this experiment was that they were trying to complete tasks, but the dependent factor was that they had inhibitors two of the times.

First off, when tasked with creating an experimental design, you must randomly assign your participants into different testing groups. For this experiment, we will have the control group and an experimental group. Our research participants will be randomly assigned to either group and we will check drivers in each group for 20/20 vision. We will also check the participants driving record to see if their is a history

After the driving simulation, participants will be asked to complete a short (approx. 5 min) survey about their lifestyle choices in the 24 hours preceding the study (e.g. food intake, hours of sleep). They will then be asked to leave out a door connected to the study room so that the next participant will not have the opportunity to interact with one that has already completed to study to ensure no flow of information.

In the video, their hypothesis was that driving while on the cell phone is just as dangerous as driving while drunk. They tested this hypothesis while driving through a course three different times under different circumstances. The dependent variable in the experiment is how well the drivers drove through the courses during the three trials. The independent variables in the experiment is whether the drivers were on the phone, drunk, or neither. The three experimental conditions explored in the experiment were driving while sober without using a phone, driving while using a phone, and driving while drunk. Based on the results of the experiment, the team concluded that driving while on the phone is more dangerous than driving while drunk. A

The purpose of this study was to analyze the dangers of both the usage of cell phones and the consumption of alcohol while driving. Researchers wanted to see which one was more dangerous for the driver out of these two distractions. In the study that was conducted in “A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver” during the 2006 year, took 40 experienced adult drivers (25 men, 15 women) and put them through a three-day lab experiment. Using the PatrolSim high fidelity driving stimulator, participants went through three different driving situations; a baseline, driving with the BAC .08%, and using a cell phone while driving. The same test was used in each one, which allowed researchers to figure out which distraction was more

The main idea of this article was to experiment the different causes of driving distractions in order to narrow down what affects drivers the most. Participants ranging from 18 to 30 were separated into 3 groups. In these groups, 1 group will be tested by having a conversation on the phone, another group will be holding phones, and the last group will be listening to the radio (all while driving). After the experiment was conducted, the authors justified that the groups who were holding phones and having a conversation missed twice as many simulated traffic signals than the radio group. The radio group was barely affected while testing. Moreover, this article is credible because the authors majored in psychological science at the University

The tuition fees for these colleges are somewhat similar. One similarity is the amount of tuition each school has set. The annual tuition for Purdue is $23,002 per year (College Navigator). In comparison, the annual tuition for IU Bloomington is $24,417 per year (College Navigator). One difference, in this category, is what the tuition includes. The annual tuition estimates for Purdue do not include personal or travel expenses (Big Future). On the other hand, the annual tuition for IU Bloomington does include some personal and some travel expenses (Indiana University). Overall, in this category, IU Bloomington is the best college choice because of what the tuition price includes.

Cell phones are amazing pieces of technology, but like everything else, there is a time and place for their use. One of the times they should not be used is while driving, and there has been much speculation that cell phone use while driving can impair the driver. In order to make this experiment valid it must have a controlled conditions, the subjects used must be chosen at random and free of bias, and the only difference between both the controlled and tested conditions is the use of a cell phone.

Experiment 1 comprised of Forty-Five students, they were split into groups of various sizes and were shown seven short clips ranging from 5 to 30 seconds of road traffic collisions. Each participant would then receive a questionnaire following each film

Stayer et al.(2006) compared two types of drivers which mobile phone drivers and drunk drivers. Alcohol has been used as a benchmark for assessing performance impairments including in aviation, fatigue and many more. Thus, it is good for the study to see the harmful effects of using mobile phone on driving performance by comparing it with the performance of drivers with a blood alcohol concentration at a legal limit. Other strength is Strayer et al.(2006) used repeated measure in the study. All of the forty participants need to participate in all of the conditions. This will exclude the effects of individual differences that could occur if two different people were used instead. Thus, the result of the study became more valid as the researchers can observe participants’ driving performance from three different conditions. The limitation of the study is the usage of driving stimulator in the experiment. Participants have not been exposed to the real danger as driving stimulator can control the condition. Thus, they might act in a different manner compared to a real life situation. Next, distractor vehicles were programmed to drive between 5% and 10% faster from the participants’ car. So, participants were prepared and used to that kind steady flow of traffic. It does not reflect real life situation where distractor vehicles will drive at any rate of speed. The distractor vehicles could be faster or slower than our car in real situation. Thus, the increased or decreased in driving performance can be question out because the speed of distractor vehicles has been set up rather than having normal speed of distractor

The study was attempting to determine the thoughts and behaviors that African American freshman college students in regards to cellphone use while driving. They wanted to know how the students thought cellphones (independent variable) impact driving skills (dependent variable). Research suggests that cellphone use correlates to higher likelihood of accidents. The study used 331 (195 females and 136 males) freshman students who held a driver’s license. The students were then given a questionnaire with 50 questions, with 6 demographic items, that asked about 5 general items that distract drivers. The survey was given during the freshman first year experience class. The study could only use a survey response to ask students about their cellphone use and would not be ethical to have students use their cellphones and drive, in a real life experiment setting. They found evidence that supports their initial beliefs that cell phone use does lead to greater risk of danger while driving. They further explain the limits to their study, that this can only be generalized towards the African American community because of the selective (purely African American college) sample.