Cell Phones and Cars- Part 2: "The Wireless Era" in Relation To Vehicles

The assignment this week for our class, Information 3.0, required us to respond to a 2005 study encompassing the basic social effects of cell phone use in public areas. Now, seeing that this study was performed in 2005, it is slightly outdated, as cell phone technology has greatly evolved in recent years; heck, current cell phones are adding on projectors. No one in 2005 saw that coming. Anyways, this study encompasses the many different relationships that are effected by cell phone calls and how people respond in different situations. I will relate each major part of this study to cell phone use in cars.

The study defined two different types of people in public: "Singles" are people who are alone and "Withs" are people in a group. As you can already tell from these definitions, this study is not very technical or quantitative, it is actually entirely qualitative. "Singles" will often feel awkward in public, as if they're being judged, so they will often utilize self-defense strategies, like reading a paper or calling someone, to legitimize their presence and not feel out of place. At the same time, these reactions dismiss and possible social interaction by making them seem busy; it's self-defeating. "Withs" are the opposite, but, in some situations, a member of a "With" will feel awkward as well. For example, if in a group of 2, one person leaves to go order food, the other is left to sit alone and utilize standard "Single"-esque mechanisms to express business. A more important example, and one of the study's main points, is the instance of "cross talk:""a conversation where ‘one member of a With momentarily sustains exclusive talk with someone who is not in the With'," usually due to a cell phone call. This results in the creation of a new "Single" (the person not on the phone) and a "Dyad" (the relationship of a cell phone user and a caller/answerer). Depending on the non-physical person on the other end of the phone, the Single will or will not interact with the dyad. If the Single doesn't know the person, he/she won't interact with them and will enter a state of anxiety (often leaving if the call goes on for too long) while the cell phone user will attempt to make a "private space"; if the Single does know the person, the Single and dyad will enter the "Dual Front Interaction" stage, a form of listening in, or a "Three-way Interaction," where all three people will be involved in the conversation. The Single will talk through the cell phone user, who acts as a messenger on many occasions, and no anxiety will be found in any of the members of the group. If one is driving alone, there is never any social anxiety as a "Single" because, despite being in public, one always assumes a person is driving with a purpose in mind, a destination at the end of their drive. When driving with a passenger, in a "With," there is normally cross talk with unsafe drivers and no cross talk with safe drivers). Here are the steps of discourse if the driver is called (steps with "a" are for safe drivers, "b" for unsafe drivers): 1a) The music is turned down/off, 1a) The music is kept loud and distracting, 2a) Being a safe driver, the driver would give the phone to a passenger, 2b) Being an unsafe driver, the driver would start chatting on the phone, 3a) the passenger would act as a messenger/intermediate, taking part in the conversation so no one feels anxiety or exclusion, 3b) the passenger listens to music while the driver talks, ultimately feeling anxious due to his/her exclusion and most likely the dangerous driving.

The study also analyzed the use of caller ID and screening incoming calls. On older landline phones, caller ID was not always available, meaning the caller had the power in the interaction; the caller acts, and the answerer reacts. But, with caller ID, screening calls became possible, allowing the answerer to hold a large amount of power; if they didn't want to answer the call because of the caller, they now had the option. This created a varied caller-answerer relationship termed "caller hegemony." This imbalance, once only referring to the caller's power, now can change between the cell phone users based on screening and calling. This relationship can often be found in the car during calls. When a "Single" gets a call, he/she really shouldn't answer it in order to stay safe, but if, for example, the caller ID reads 'hospital,' it would be valid to answer because it could be an emergency. If it's a friend, a driver may not answer because it has lesser importance than being in control of the vehicle. When a driver is part of a "With," since there is a passenger, the call is much less likely to be screened, but it's not unheard of. Often times, the driver will have the passenger read the ID to determine its importance; although talking doesn't require as much concentration, chatting about trivial matters while driving is not often done by safe drivers, even if a passenger holds the phone. If the call does hold some importance, the passenger will either act as a messenger or just hold the phone while on speaker setting. The speaker setting on the phone was one of the great cell phone revolutions in relation to vehicular use, because it allowed drivers to take calls hands-free (minus the initial answering and pressing of buttons).

Recently, the Jupiter Jack, a nifty cell phone device promoted by the late Billy Mays, has been becoming rather mainstream. This gadget attachs quite nicely to your phone and allows you to place your phone in a convenient holder on the dashboard, allowing for one-button answering. It increases the speaker volume and overall makes the call much easier for the driver. Although a neat device, it successfully defeats a passenger's purpose as messenger, resulting in their feeling of exclusion. Also, it requires talking, meaning less attention is kept on the road. It solves some problems, but creates more in a sense. I don't have one because I firmly believe in a minimal amount of phone use while driving; plus I can see myself forgetting the phone in the holder many a time.

Overall, the study is outdated and, although many different individuals were studied in respective public environments, it provides no hard evidence or data because no subject was studied for a long period of time or observed in every environment. The definitions are also very loose and need to be expanded to express all the different members of a "With" in relation to the cell phone user. For example, what is a person called within a With if he/she is neither the messenger or cell phone user, but is talking to yet another member of the With? What is that With within a With called? Lastly, further studies concerning cell phone use should be done in cars. Why do drivers feel the need to answer the phone even though they it inhibits their driving skills? Like most people and subjects in the study, I will answer the phone, no matter the situation I am in; people have an innate response to answer a ringing phone, as if beckoning them. This should be studied in the car because, if research could unveil why drivers still feel they need to take calls, further actions could be taken to stop dangerous cell use in cars. Even though I know I shouldn't, I always innately go for my phone when it rings while I drive. I have to tell myself to stop. Once that innate drive is further investigated, I and many others will finally understand why there is an urge, a dependence, to answer that vibrating piece of plastic and electronics that indirectly controls all our lives.