WHICH IS WORSE: DRIVING WHILE DRUNK OR WHILE TALKING ON A CELL PHONE? (THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.)

WHICH IS WORSE: DRIVING WHILE DRUNK OR WHILE TALKING ON A CELL PHONE? (THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.)

One of the most popular driving activities in recent years seems to be talking on the cell phone. Is this a dangerous distraction? University of Utah psychologist David Strayer and his colleagues (2004) used a high- fidelity driving simulator to answer this question and their findings are sobering. Compared to a control group devoting all their attention to driving, a group talking on a cell phone missed twice as many red lights, recognized fewer billboards they had driven by, took longer to hit the brake to stop while following another car, took longer to recover speed after passing the car, and had more accidents, in spite of leaving more distance between themselves and the next car.

Some additional conditions helped understand what was going on better. Talking on a non-hand-held phone was just as bad as on a hand- held phone, so it is the cognitive distraction of the conversation, not the motor skill requirement of holding the phone, that is the major problem. Also, drivers listening to the radio or book on tape or talking to a passenger in the car did not differ from the control group, so these conditions do not place strong demands on attention. One does not have to respond to the radio or talking book, and when the other conversant is in the car with you, he or she can also see the driving conditions and make adjustments in the conversation as conditions warrant, such as keeping quiet for awhile. In one study, Strayer got his participants drunk to the minimum blood alcohol level for legal intoxication after they had driven in the control and cell-phone conditions. In the car-following task, students who were legally drunk actually stopped (and later regained speed) faster than those talking on the cell phone (though slower than the controls). Thus, talking on a cell phone actually impaired driving more than being legally drunk!

This research uses the experimental design of cognitive psychology to address a question of vital social importance. The results support the legislation in some places like New York City to ban cell phone use while driving, although limiting the ban to hand-held units may not completely do the job.

Suspending Disbelief

Like movies or theater, television involves the social convention of the

43 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

characters we see as real human beings so that we can identify with them to experience their joys and sorrows (Esslin, 1982). We know that two actors are not really married to each other but we agree to suspend our disbelief and accept them as a married couple when we watch their weekly sitcom. Because of the continuing nature of a television series (often several years for a successful show), this suspension of disbelief for television is a far more enduring fantasy than it is for a 2-hour movie or play. Producers in the early days of television may have doubted the ability of the public to suspend that much disbelief. Many of the earliest TV series featured real-life spouses playing TV partners (Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, George Burns and Gracie Allen, Jack Benny and Mary Livingston, Ozzie and Harriet Nelson). This phenomenon has been rare since the 1950s, however.

Sometimes disbelief is suspended so long that distinction between fantasy and reality becomes blurred. Although young children have difficulty understanding the difference between actors and the characters they portray (Dorr, 1980; Fitch et al, 1993), this problem is not limited to children. As any series actor knows, adult fans frequently ask an actor playing a doctor for medical advice or hurl epithets at an actress playing a villain on a soap opera. Such fantasies are covertly encouraged by spinoff series, where the same character moves from one series to another (e.g., Dr. Frasier Crane was originally a supporting character on Cheers). Children’s cartoon or puppet characters like Mickey Mouse, Big Bird, Garfield, Spongebob Squarepants or Barney the Dinosaur may reappear in commercials, toys, and kid’s meals at restaurants, all of which support a belief in their reality apart from the show.

Sometimes television may provide such a salient exemplar of an extremely unpleasant reality once the disbelief is suspended. Box 2.5 explores the feared and actual effects of a much-hyped TV movie on nuclear war.

Identification

The emotional involvement that we have watching a TV show depends in part on how much we identify with the character, that is, mentally compare ourselves to and imagine ourselves like that character. It is easier to identify with characters with whom we have more experience in common, although that is not a prerequisite for identification. There is a certain universality in most good drama. For example, a huge number of Americans, none of whom had ever been in slavery and most of whom were White, were moved by the landmark 1970s historical miniseries Roots, about generations of an African American family starting in slavery. Apparently, the basic humanity of the characters was portrayed so well that viewers could identify emotionally

Research and Theory in Mass Communication 44

with the characters at some level without having experienced similar situations themselves.

The perceived reality of media is greater if our identification with the characters is such that they become significant persons in our own lives (Potter, 1988). We are more likely to imitate the behaviors or adopt the attitudes of characters we identify with. This has important social ramifications, and that is why there are greater antisocial effects of observing violent behavior by positive good guy characters than by criminal types (see chapter 9).