PS300 Unit 10 Distracted Crossing Research Report Example

Phones at the Curb: A PS300 Unit 10 Research Report on Distracted Crossing in Downtown Spokane

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS300: Research Methods I

Unit 10 Research Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The observation, the survey, every figure and the observers are composite; the published studies cited are real.

Introduction

Pedestrians who use phones while walking may notice less of their surroundings. A clown riding a unicycle across a campus square went unseen by most walkers who were on phone calls, far more often than by walkers without phones (Hyman et al., 2010). Emergency department records showed phone-related pedestrian injuries rising relative to all pedestrian injuries through 2010 (Nasar & Troyer, 2013). An observation of 1,102 pedestrians in Seattle found that nearly 30 percent were distracted while crossing and that texting pedestrians were more likely to cross unsafely (Thompson et al., 2013).

This project asked two questions at a busy intersection in downtown Spokane: how common is phone use while crossing, and is it associated with less careful crossing and with near misses? It used two methods with different strengths, an observation of actual behavior and a survey of experiences an observer cannot see.

Method

Observation. Four weekday hours, drawn at random over two weeks, were spent at the northeast corner of the Division Street crossing, where two trained observers coded people as they left the curb. Each pedestrian was coded at the moment of stepping off the curb for phone use, head turn toward traffic, signal compliance and a broad age estimate. Both observers coded the first 80 pedestrians to assess agreement. One pedestrian in immediate danger was warned and excluded.

Survey. A twelve-item anonymous survey asked about phone use while walking and crossing in the past seven days, near misses in the past 30 days and beliefs about risk. Items were piloted with five adults and revised. Recruitment ran through neighborhood online groups and printed notices near the corner, yielding 146 usable questionnaires.

One method watched what people did; the other asked what had happened to them; both pointed the same way.

Results

Observation. Agreement between observers was high, with Cohen's kappa of 0.82 for phone use (Landis & Koch, 1977). Phones were in use at the curb for 118 of the 412 pedestrians, 28.6 percent, more often among those estimated under 30, 34 percent, than among older pedestrians, 23 percent. Phone users turned toward traffic before crossing in 31 percent of cases, compared with 58 percent of others, and crossed against the signal in 14 percent against 9 percent.

Survey. Forty-two percent of respondents reported frequent phone use while crossing in the past week. Among these frequent users, 51.6 percent reported a near miss in the past month, compared with 21.4 percent of other respondents, χ²(1, N = 146) = 14.43, p < .001, φ = .31. Eighty-one percent of all respondents, and 74 percent of frequent users, agreed that phone use while crossing makes them less safe.

Why Combine Methods

Each method answered a question the other could not. The observation measured behavior directly, without relying on anyone's memory, but it saw each pedestrian for only a few seconds and could not learn anything about their history. The survey reached into the past month and into beliefs, but it depended on what respondents remembered and were willing to report. Where the two agree, a finding is more convincing than either alone; where they differ, as on the rate of phone use, the difference itself is informative, pointing to sampling and definitions as things to check in a future study.

Discussion

Both methods found that phone use while crossing was common and associated with less careful behavior or more close calls. The observation's 29 percent closely matches the Seattle finding, and the lower rate of looking among phone users fits the idea that phones draw attention away from traffic. The survey adds that people who often use phones while crossing recall more near misses, and that most of them know the habit is risky.

Neither method can show that phone use causes unsafe crossing. Younger pedestrians used phones more, and age, hurry or general risk-taking could explain part of the differences. The observation's two-group age estimate was too rough to adjust for age properly. Survey responses depend on memory and honesty, and the convenience sample may overrepresent frequent downtown walkers. Cozby and Bates (2020) describe agreement between methods with different weaknesses as stronger evidence than either method alone, and that is the main strength of this project.

The gap between knowledge and behavior in the survey has practical implications. If most frequent users already believe phone use while crossing is unsafe, warning campaigns may change little. Changes to the environment, such as longer walk signals or curb markings at eye level for people looking down, may do more. Several cities have experimented with lights embedded in the pavement at crossings, placed where a pedestrian looking at a phone would see them; this project cannot evaluate such measures, but its findings suggest why they might be worth testing.

Limitations

The observation covered one intersection, one corner and daylight weekday hours; after the first 80 pedestrians a single observer did all the coding, so drift could not be checked; and one dangerous event was excluded. The survey used a convenience sample with self-reported measures. Neither method could separate the effect of the phone from other characteristics of the people using it.

Ethics

The observation recorded only public behavior and collected no identifying information, and observers were instructed to warn anyone in immediate danger. The survey was anonymous and voluntary, with a consent statement and the option to skip questions. Both designs were judged minimal risk in light of the APA Ethics Code (American Psychological Association, 2017).

Recommendations for Future Research

Three improvements would strengthen a follow-up study. Observing several intersections at different times of day, including evenings, would test whether the pattern holds beyond one corner in daylight. Keeping two observers throughout, rather than only for the reliability sample, would protect against coding drift. And a simulated crossing in which participants are randomly assigned to text or not, using a virtual environment that keeps them safe, would test the causal question that this project could not answer.

Conclusion

At this intersection, phone use while crossing was common and went with less careful crossing and more close calls. A study that randomly assigned phone use in a safe, simulated crossing, as recommended above, would be needed to test whether the phone itself causes the difference.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). https://www.apa.org/ethics/code

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2020). Methods in behavioral research (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Hyman, I. E., Jr., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597-607. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1638

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Nasar, J. L., & Troyer, D. (2013). Pedestrian injuries due to mobile phone use in public places. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 57, 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.021

Thompson, L. L., Rivara, F. P., Ayyagari, R. C., & Ebel, B. E. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: An observational study. Injury Prevention, 19(4), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040601