Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training Programme Erik Roelofs, Jan Vissers, Marieke van Onna, Gerard Kern Cito, National Institute for Educational Measurement, The Netherlands DHV group, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Regional Agency for Traffic Safety Gelderland, The Netherlands Introduction During the first six to twelve months of solo driving, young novice drivers experience the most dangerous phase of their driving career: their accident risk reaches a peak by then. This is why several European countries have introduced obligatory second phase training programmes. Other European countries provide these training programmes on a voluntary basis. A recent evaluation of the Austrian model (Gatscha and Brandstaetter, 2008) showed that the number of personal injury accidents among 18-year-old novice drivers was reduced with 28 per cent in all regions of Austria after the introduction of the obligatory second phase system. Several studies stress that the content of second phase driving programmes should not be restricted to lower level
51
Embed
Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training Programme
In this paper we describe the structure of a second phase driver training programme. Keyword is coaching in a balanced way. Participants of the program are descirbed: with which what driving history they enter the program and how they perform after the coaching programme.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Coaching Young Drivers in a Second Phase Training
Programme
Erik Roelofs, Jan Vissers, Marieke van Onna, Gerard Kern
Cito, National Institute for Educational Measurement, The Netherlands
DHV group, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
Regional Agency for Traffic Safety Gelderland, The Netherlands
Introduction
During the first six to twelve months of solo driving, young novice drivers experience the
most dangerous phase of their driving career: their accident risk reaches a peak by then. This
is why several European countries have introduced obligatory second phase training
programmes. Other European countries provide these training programmes on a voluntary
basis. A recent evaluation of the Austrian model (Gatscha and Brandstaetter, 2008) showed
that the number of personal injury accidents among 18-year-old novice drivers was reduced
with 28 per cent in all regions of Austria after the introduction of the obligatory second phase
system.
Several studies stress that the content of second phase driving programmes should not
be restricted to lower level vehicle control skills. Moreover, concentrating on the lower
vehicle control skills can even be counterproductive (Glad, 1988). Instead, second phase
driving programmes should rather address driving style variables which refer to the way that
people choose to drive (Elander, West and French, 1993; McKenna, 2009), which can be
explained by the way drivers make decisions on the level of life tasks and on the strategic,
tactical and operational levels of driving tasks.
In a literature review Helman, Grayson and Parkes (2010) driving style variables on the
strategic and participation level of driving tasks that are associated with collision risk are
reviewed: speed choice, close following of vehicles in front, high-risk overtaking, violation
of traffic laws and engaging in distracting activities, such as speaking on mobile phones
while driving.
Factors on the lifestyle level, such as fatigue-related factors (Groeger, 2006; McKenna,
2009), and alcohol use, themselves fall outside the driving domain, but are associated with
collision risk. Groeger (2006) points out that fatigue is especially relevant for very young
new drivers, since their lifestyle – often involving extensive weekend and evening socializing
– does not support good sleep hygiene.
The awareness of these factors, the readiness and the ability to take them into
consideration before and during driving involve higher order skills on the part of the young
driver, as elaborated in the Goals of Driver Education matrix (Hatakka, et al., 2002). Among
these skills are self-reflection and awareness of emotions during driving. The purpose of
second phase training programmes is to further develop higher order driving skills that appear
to play an important role in the reduction of one´s accident risk.
As in other educational areas, scholars stress that development of complex higher order
skills should involve increased levels of self-regulation. Although varying approaches may
stimulate self-regulation on the part of the learner, there is consensus about the idea that some
form of coaching is likely to be effective. For driving instructors who use direct instruction
and immediate feedback as a dominant method of training, this shift towards coaching
requires a role shift. The driving instructor becomes a driving coach.
Drawing from the field of educational psychology coaching can be described as
stimulating and supporting self-regulated learning (Boekaerts, 1999; Butler and Winne,
1995). Coaching interventions are expected to stimulate and support cognitive, meta-
cognitive, and affective learning activities (Perry, 1998; Perry, et al., 2004; Shuell, 1993;
Winne and Hadwin, 1998). Cognitive learning activities pertain to the cognitive activities that
learners employ to process relevant task information that contribute to the realization of
learning outcomes in terms of changes in learners’ knowledge base and skills. Affective
learning activities pertain to coping with emotions that arise during learning and that lead to a
mood that may either facilitate or impair the progress of the learning process. Meta-cognitive
activities pertain to thinking activities that learners employ to regulate their learning process.
These include a) the choice of personal learning objectives, the pace and course of the
learning process, and its learning contents, b) the monitoring of learning activities, c) the
evaluation of the outcomes and d) the changes in the regulation aspects that follow from
evaluations (Vermunt and Verloop, 1999).
Typical coaching interventions that are employed to stimulate and support the learning
process are asking questions and providing feedback on learning activities as employed by
the learner. Using these interventions, the educator makes learners aware of the adequacy,
efficiency, and effectiveness of learning activities (Boekaerts and Simons, 1995; Butler and
Winne, 1995). The ultimate goal of coaching is to foster self-regulated learning (SRL) In
practice, not all learners possess the necessary regulation skills for SRL and need a more
balanced approach between educator-led and learner-led regulation. Questions and feedback
utterances during coaching may therefore vary from extremely open to very structured.
Providing clues, hints, advice, and examples constitute coaching interventions with a high
degree of educator regulation. From a Vygotskian point of view, which was adopted by the
authors in constructing a driver coaching programme, competent coaches provide just enough
support in order to enable students to make the step to the next higher level in employing a
learning activity, which they could not have made on their own (Vygotski, 1978). As the
performance of a learning activity improves, the support of the educator should decrease until
the student can perform the learning activity independently. This is referred to in the
literature as ‘fading’ (Collins, Brown, and Newman, 1989).
Recently, within the field of driver training, principles of coaching have been defined,
which closely resemble the recommendations from educational psychology (Bartl, et al.,
2010). Coaching:
puts the learner in an active role;
builds on the prior knowledge and experience of the learner;
encourages the learner to identify his/her goals and to meet these goals;
raises the awareness, responsibility and self-acceptance of the learner;
raises awareness of the learners’ values, goals, motives and attitudes as well as his sensations and
emotions, knowledge, skills and habits;
addresses the learner’s internal obstacles to change.
As coaching builds on the learners’ awareness of their learning progress, a relevant role
can be played by assessments for learning (AFL). AFL are used to inform and support the
learner and their educators about their levels of (driving) competence, and the underlying
performance aspects that need further attention. By using the results of these assessments,
subsequent coaching may be tailored to the learner drivers’ specific needs (Stiggins, 2002).
To facilitate higher order level learning in driving, formative assessments should go
beyond traditional assessments aimed at isolated testing of knowledge about traffic rules and
technical driving skills. Fitting in with the approach as described above, formative
assessments need to: a) address critical elements of the driving task and its circumstances as
they appear in daily driving and throughout the driving career; b) fit in with the stage of
development of the (learner) driver, c) be informative about various mental processes.
The current study focused on a Dutch second phase coaching programme that was
developed as part of the EU-project ‘Evaluation of post-licence training schemes for novice
drivers’ (NovEv; Sanders and Keskinen, 2004). The programme, entitled ‘The Drive
Xperience’, was based on recommendations from recent literature on the coaching of young
drivers. Since the first introduction of the programme in 2003, it has been updated and
evaluated on a continuous basis (Vissers, 2006).
In this study, attention was focused on a description of the participating group of young
drivers. As participation in the Dutch programme is voluntary there may be a form of self-
selection, resulting e.g. in groups of highly motivated responsible drivers or in groups with
drivers with already a rich accident history. For the programme to be successful in addressing
the target group, it aims to attract a representative group of young drivers, who are in need of
various forms of extra insights into their driving styles. The main research questions of this
study entail:
1. To what extent does the programme address the envisioned target group?
2. To what extent does the design and content of the coaching programme address the driving
characteristics of the participating young drivers?
In order to determine the fit with the target group, the driving characteristics of
participating young drivers in ‘The Drive Xperience Programme’ were compared with a
Dutch reference group of young drivers. Also comparisons were made with characteristics of
experienced drivers who drive in leased cars and who are sent to an advanced driver training
programme, because of their unfavourable driving history.
More specifically, the following research questions will be addressed:
What are the driving characteristics of young drivers enrolled in a programme for coached driving in
terms of their driving behaviour, their personal risk factors, and their self-perceptions regarding driving
proficiency?
In what respects do participating young drivers differ from the average young driver, as described in
earlier young driver studies in The Netherlands?
In what respects do young drivers differ from experienced drivers, who are enrolled in advanced driver
training programmes?
Method
Design characteristics of the second phase coaching programme ‘Drive Xperience’
The design principles and content of the Drive Xperience (DX) programme second phase
coaching programme were drawn from different sources of research, which are described
below.
GDE-matrix: task levels of driving Throughout the training programme the GDE matrix
(Hatakka et al, 2002) is used as a conceptual framework for all learning experiences. During
discussion about driving styles, it is emphasized that the actual quality of participation in
traffic situations is influenced by decisions on higher level tasks. These include life tasks, e.g.
socializing with peers, recreating, working, and strategic tasks, e.g. choice of transportation
mode, and route decisions.
Driving as a serious task, involving complex task processes The idea is that at all levels
car, driving needs to be considered as a serious task, in which various aspects need to be
considered simultaneously: the state of the driver, passengers, baggage, presence of other
participants, weather road conditions and so forth.
Besides, drivers often carry out competing (life level) tasks which can seriously impede
the quality of the driving task execution: e.g. phoning, talking, mental preparation for work,
being angry with other drivers. In the training programme coaches will consider driving as a
cognitive/affective decision making process, during which the driver (ideally verbally) needs
to reflect on his/her own decisions, actions and consequences as depicted in figure 1.
[Insert Figure 1]
The model, which is used in simplified form, offers a thinking tool for the young driver
during coached trips. During the preparation programme, coaches use the model when
reflecting on explanations of driver behaviour, located inside or outside the driver (referred to
as ‘basis’ and ‘traffic situation’ in the model).
Balancing task complexity and level of proficiency One of the problems with young
drivers is that they often fail to safely adapt their choice of traffic situations to their level of
proficiency (Fuller, 2005; De Craen, 2010). Due to a lack of driving experience and to an
inadequate self-assessment of own proficiency young drivers choose to engage in traffic
situations they do not have mastery of yet.
In the coaching programme young drivers are supported to search for a balance
between their own level of proficiency and the complexity of the traffic situations they
engage in. Disturbance of this balance may cause hazardous situations. Keeping a surplus of
proficiency (in terms of time and space for actions) is considered essential. Task complexity
is addressed in two ways during the young driver coaching programme.
First, driving coaches are encouraged to choose routes consisting of traffic situations
with varying degrees of complexity, but that never overtax the young driver. By choosing
critical situations where proficiency and task complexity begin to show imbalance, young
drivers become aware of their learning needs. Second, the factors that cause task complexity
and imbalance are discussed during the trip. Borrowing from error-taxonomy studies (Stanton
and Salmon, 2009) critical task environmental attributes are addressed that hamper or
facilitate the driving process in the following way:
Perception/comprehension: This process is hampered by sight obstruction, camouflage,
hearing obstruction, and discontinuous traffic environment. E.g. a hedge blocking the side view at a
crossing; unreadable road signs, temporary reduction in the numbers of lanes;
Decision making: This process is hampered by other participants who arrive at the scene at the
same time, or by reduced time and space to carry out actions. E.g. complex crossroads with many
different participants, lanes reduced in width, narrow and winding roads.
Action execution: This process is hampered by reduced space, and road or weather conditions
hindering vehicle control. E.g. wet road surface, snow, cross winds, high gradient percentage.
Referring to different GDE task levels some of the outcomes of the discussions could
be to avoid driving at certain hours of in certain conditions, to take an alternative route
(strategic level) or to reduce speed earlier (tactical level). Discussions about driving
behaviour are facilitated by the use of observation assignments for passengers, who are not
behind the wheel (see next section).
Criteria for driving proficiency The ultimate goal of the coaching programme is that
young drivers make responsible decisions in traffic tasks at all GDE task levels. To determine
the quality of driving behaviour, coaches are encouraged to pay attention to five inter-related
criteria of driving performance (Roelofs, et al., 2010): 1) Safety: The driver’s ability to solve
traffic situations in such a way that time and space are available for all participants to carry
out driving activities without conflicting or colliding with objects or others. Indicators are
awareness of the situation, correct timing of actions, adapting speed and using “space
cushions”; 2) Facilitating traffic flow: The ability to drive in a way that does not impede the
progress of other road users, and helps an optimal flow of traffic; 3) Consideration with other
road users: The ability to give others opportunities to fulfill their tasks, or to adapt to their
mistakes, without showing aggression or irritation; 4) Controlled driving: Steering and
controlling the car smoothly, without stutters and jerks or departures from smooth lines. 5)
Environmentally-responsible driving: Driving in such a way that emissions of harmful gases
and noise levels are kept to a minimum and that optimal use of fuel is achieved.
These criteria, with an emphasis on safety, form the basis of discussions about traffic
behaviour. In addition, these criteria are addressed in the web-based assessments for learning
which participants go through as a preparation for the coaching programme.
Overview of the second phase coaching programme
Figure 2 gives a schematic overview of the DX programme.
[Insert figure 2]
During a pre-test period of four weeks before the start of the training programme the
participants were asked to complete two web-based assessments: The Driver Risk
Assessment and the Driver Self-Assessment. These assessments result in an individual driver
profile for the participant. The individual profiles are also accessible for the driving coaches
and are used for tailoring the training content to individual learning needs and for reflective
purposes on the part of the young drivers. Participating young drivers use the outcomes to
arrive at personal learning objectives for the coached trip. For instance, speed or distraction
may have turned out to be risk factors for a participating young driver.
The driver coaching programme takes place during one day and consists of three parts:
Coached trip: The main objective of the coached trip is to present the driver with feedback
about his ‘everyday’ driving performance.
Track experience: The main objective of the track experience is for participants to experience
the limits of their skills in vehicle control and to share these experiences with other group members.
Group discussion: The main objective of the group discussion is to stimulate recognition of
potentially hazardous situations in rather 'normal' driving situations. Risks of alcohol use and other
risky driving behaviors are discussed.
During the coached trip the principles of coaching individual drivers are elaborated in
detail. The trip takes approximately one hour per participant. The driving coach is expected to
choose a route that addresses the specific needs of the young driver. During a 15 minute pre
trip discussion the young drivers and their coaches determine the routes to be taken. In
addition, observation points are chosen by which parts of the trip can be reviewed and
discussed in a non-threatening way. During the trip the young passengers are asked to mark
all observed interactions with other participants in terms of their experienced degree of
comfort, discomfort or even fear (figure 3).
[Insert figure 3]
At two points the trip is paused to enable a discussion about what has happened during
the trip. First the driver gives his/her own impressions. Then the passengers give their notes
and the driver reacts to them. In this conversation the coach asks clarifying questions and
elicits better solutions by building on the passengers’ and the drivers’ responses. Trends in
driving behaviour are notified, e.g. using big/small space cushions towards other traffic
participants, or scanning timely or too late for the changes in the traffic situations.
During the trip the coach is expected to give suggestions for changes in the route to
enable the driver to drive in situations that are relevant to his or her personal objectives.
After the second stop the strong points and the points to improve are reviewed after
which the participants change places, and the previous passenger now drives. At the end of
three trips the young drivers are asked to write down the most important points on which they
want to improve themselves in the near future.
During a post-test period of four weeks after the programme the participants are
expected to complete a third web-based assessment, the Situation Awareness Test. This
assessment also yields a feedback report which may give additional information about points
to be developed (see section below).
Instrumentation
In this study data from three draft instruments aimed at informing drivers about their risk
profile and their driving behaviour were employed. The instruments were administered
during the coaching programme as described above. At the same time the data were used to
give a detailed description of the participants in terms of the factors and behaviours
mentioned above. As the instruments have also been administered to experienced drivers
(driving in leased cars) enrolled in driver training programmes, comparisons can be made
between young (inexperienced) drivers and older (more experienced) lease car drivers.
Driver Risk Assessment questionnaire The Driver Risk Assessment is a web-based
questionnaire consisting of 119 questions regarding the driver history and the drivers’
behavioural risk factors. Personal background variables pertain to age, gender, and years of
driving experience. The questions regarding driving history refer to mileage and to the kind
and variety of traffic situations to which the driver is exposed: e.g. driving during rush hours,
on various road types, or driving during weekend nights. In addition, questions are posed
about the number of active and passive accidents the driver was involved in during the past
three years and the number of fines received for various reasons the past year.
Questions regarding behavioural risk factors pertain to the following topics: speed
choice under various conditions, lane preference on motorways during various traffic
conditions, alcohol use and driving, the use of adversary alcohol strategies in combination
with driving, anger in reaction to others participants’ violations, distraction and fatigue. Most
of the behavioural questions ask for a response on a Likert scale, where each scale point
Elander J., et al. (1993). Behavioural correlates of individual differences in road traffi c crash
risk: an examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113 (2) 279–294.
Eversdijk, J.J.C., et al. (2000). PROV 1999 Periodiek Regionaal Onderzoek
Verkeersveiligheid [PROV 1999: periodic Dutch regional research into traffic safety].
Report number: TT00-66. Veenendaal: Traffic Test BV.
Fuller, R., (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 37, 461-472.
Gatscha, M., and Brandstaetter, C., (2008) Evaluation der zweiten Ausbildungsphase in
Österreich [Evaluation of the second phase system in Austria]. Forschungsarbeiten aus
dem Verkehrswesen. Vol. 173. Austrian Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and
Technology. Vienna, Austria.
Glad, A., (1988) Fase 2 I foreoplaringen. Effect pa ultkkes riskoen. [Driver Education’s
second phase. Its effect to the accdident risk.] Reprot No. 0015. Oslo,
Transportokonomiskt institut.
Groeger J A., (2006). Youthfulness, inexperience, and sleep loss: the problems young drivers
face and those they pose for us. Injury Prevention, 12 19–24.
Hatakka, M., et al. (2002) From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening
the perspectives to driver education. Transportation Research Part F, 5, 201-215.
Helman, S., et al. (2010). A review of the effects of experience, training and limiting exposure
on the collision risk of new drivers. TRL Insight Report INS005. Bracknell (UK):
Transport Research Laboratory.
McKenna, F. P., (2009). Can we predict driver behavior from a person’s sleep habits?
Behavioural Research in Road Safety, 19th Seminar, 30 March–1 April 2009. London:
Department for Transport.
McKenna, F. P., (2010). Education in Road Safety Are we getting it right? London: RAC
Foundation.
Mynttinen, S., et al. (2010). Two-phase driver education models applied in Finland and in
Austria – Do we have evidence to support the two phase models? Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(1), 63-70.
Perry, N., et al. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-
regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1854-1878.
Perry, N.E., (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and the context that support it.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 715-729.
Roelofs, E.C., et al. (2008). Development of multimedia tests for responsive driving. In L.
Dorn (ed.) Driver Behaviour and Training, Volume III (pp 251-264), Hampshire:
Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Roelofs, E.C., at al. (2010). Development of the Driver Performance Assessment: Informing
Learner Drivers of their Driving Progress. In L. Dorn (Ed.) Driver behavior and training,
volume IV (pp. 37-50). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Sanders, N., and Keskinnen, E., (eds.) (2004). EU NovEV project; Evaluation of post-licence
training schemes for novice drivers. Final Report. International Commission of Driver
Testing Authorities CIECA, Rijswijk, The Netherlands.
Shuell, T.J., (1993). Toward an integrated theory of teaching and learning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 291–311.
Stiggins, R. J., (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi
Delta Kappan, 83 (10), 758-765.
Stanton, N.A., and Salmon, P.M., (2009).Human error taxonomies applied to driving: A
generic driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems. Safety
Science, 47, 227–237
Vermunt, J.D., and Verloop, N., (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and
teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9, 257-280.
Vissers, J.A.M.M., (2006). Evaluatie Tweede Fase Opleidingsprogramma Gelderland 2006
[Evaluation second phase driver training programme]. Amersfoort, DHV.
Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
Winne, P.H., and Hadwin, A.F., (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D.J. Hacker,
J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice
(pp. 277-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Table 1. frequency of driving in different traffic situations
Young drivers
(n=269)Lease car
drivers (n=422)Frequency of driving: Mean SD Mean SDDuring rush hour 2.9 1.2 4.1 1.0On motorways 3.3 0.9 4.2 0.8On roads outside built-up areas 3.8 0.9 4.0 1.0In the town center of a big city 3.0 1.1 3.9 0.9During weekend nights* 2.4 1.0 2.7 0.9Note scale meaning 1= (almost) never; 5= every day; * 1= (almost) never; 4= every weekend
Table 2. Average number of accidents per million kilometers
(aged 18-24 years; n=269) 7,398 56.3 23.5 78.3PROV Young drivers1
(aged 18-24 years; n=345) 9,785 268.0 185.5 87.1PROV Young drivers3
(aged 18-24 years; n=271) 12,317 23.4 12.2 48.2Lease car drivers4
(aged 18-64 years; n=422) 9,785 9.2 5.0 32.1Note 1: Assumed reported accident period 1 year; 2: Assumed reported accident period 2 years; 3: Only those that drive more than 1000 km per year. 4: Reported accident period 3 years.
Alcohol:Frequent and intensive use of alcohol (2 items, alpha=.54)
.39 .23 .42 .19 - -
Use of adversary alcohol strategies (11 items, alpha=.92)
.05 .16 .33 .32 - -
Distractions and concentrationLoss of concentration when driving (13 items, alpha=.81)
.09 .60 .09 .10 - -
Anger:Shows serious anger to other traffic participants who commit violations (2 items, alpha=.64)
.02 .12 .02 .13 .01 .13
Shows irritation to other traffic participants who commit violations (4 items, alpha=.61)
.18 .26 .16 .24 .13 .23
Withholds anger towards traffic participants who commit violations (4 items, alpha=.59)
.55 .30 .56 .3 .43 .26
Stays calm towards traffic participants who commit violations (2 items, alpha=.45)
.75 .34 .79 .32 - -
Speed and lane preference:Violation of speed limits on various roads (50km/h; 80km/hl 120km/h roads) and circumstances (dry-rainy, calm-busy, heavy traffic; 9 items, alpha=.93)
.14 .11 .17 .14 - -
Violation of speed limits on various roads under favorable circumstances (dry, calm traffic 3 items, alpha=.65)
.23 16 .26 18 .20 .19
Driving on the outer lane of motorways under various circumstances (5 items, alpha=.78)
.33 .23 .39 .27 - -
Fatigue:Degree of fatigue during driving (5 items, alpha=.73)
.09 .09 .11 .12 - -
Note: 0.-.16: rarely; .17-.33: occasionally; .34-.50: sometimes; .51-.67: rather often; .68-.84: very often; .85-1.0: most of the times
Table 4. driving proficiency as reported on the Driver Self-Assessment
Young drivers
(n=1226)
Lease car drivers (n=579)
Mean SD Mean SD
- Committing driving errors affecting safety, traffic flow, social driving, and vehicle control (12 items, alpha=.74)
.21 .11 .17 .13
- Driving in a hurry (4 items, alpha=.63) .36 .18 .32 .18- Being irritated by behaviour of other participants (2 items, alpha=.66)
.64 .23 .49 .25
- Perceived quality of one’s own driving behaviour (43 items, alpha=.80)
.73 .08 .76 .09
Note: 0.-.16: rarely; .17-.33: occasionally; .34-.50: sometimes; .51-.67: rather often; .68-0.84: very often; .85-.1most of the times
Table 5. Scores for situation awareness
Young drivers (n=265)
Lease car drivers (n=118)
Mean SD Mean SDSubscale ‘Localizing hazards’ (8 items, alpha=.63) 7.4 1.0 7.1 1.2
Competing tasks (e.g. phoning, interacting with peers)