The Weapon of Social Media against Texting-while-Driving - Essay Example

? When Uncle Sam Uses the Weapon of Social Media against Texting-while-Driving Audience Analysis Audience profile My primary audience is the federal government, while my secondary target audiences are the media, students, families, and communities. My primary audience is composed of politicians from different political parties, and who would be generally interested in resolving the problem of texting while driving through an innovative approach. My secondary audiences, especially the youth, want participation in resolving their issues, so I believe that my argument will be appealing to them. Audience-subject relationship The government is working to stop the practice of texting while driving through state bans in several states and the active participation of the U.S. Department of Transportation in educating the youth about the risks of this practice. The government may not know that a centralized-decentralized approach is effective in changing how people use their cell phones while driving. Furthermore, I think my youth audience almost certainly knows that texting is distracting and even deadly, but they think they can still do it without harming themselves and others. They need to fully be aware of the effects of texting to driving and to know their responsibility in spreading awareness in their communities. Audience-writer relationship I am part of the youth, so I know that texting is an addictive task because social networking and “being on” 24/7 is an addictive social norm, but I am different from texting drivers because I can turn off my cell phones while driving and not feel anxious about it. My primary audience does not know me, so I need to establish a credible persona by projecting myself as a responsible student who wants to stop more deaths because texting while driving, and I can do this by describing the authority of my sources and establishing the connection between my claims and these reputable sources. For my secondary audiences, I also need to project a persona that I know the topic because of research and that they should trust because I am one of them and I want to promote their interests. The Weapon of Social Media against Texting-while-Driving Behaviors It is a social addiction that has become the number one teenage killer in the United States. No, it is not drinking and driving but the act of texting while driving. The Cohen research estimated that more than 3,000 teenage drivers died because of texting, while 300,000 were injured, compared to 2,700 teenagers who died from “drunk driving” (Ricks, 2013). Legislators have responded to this problem by banning texting for drivers in 39 states, but this is not enough. Aside from banning texting while driving, another important action that can effectively curb this harmful practice is through conducting a nationwide awareness-raising campaign that educates the youth about the effects of texting on drivers and creates a social network where stakeholders can share tips on how to stop the addictive practice of texting. The youth should know more about the negative effects of texting on their driving abilities and share their opinions with others on how to stop it because these actions can truly change their driving attitudes and behaviors in the long run. The government should stimulate and support a nationwide social media campaign that informs the youth about the negative effects of texting while driving and encourages their participation in changing mindsets and behaviors about this pernicious activity. The government must collaborate with the media, schools, and communities in educating students about the effects of texting on driving through a nationwide marketing campaign. Banning texting for drivers is not enough because it cannot, on its own, effectively change driving behavior. Delthia Ricks (2003), a correspondent for Newsday, reported that according to one study, texting bans are ineffective in directly decreasing vehicular accidents because many people continued to text and drive despite these bans. Dr. Andrew Adesman and peers from Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park studied texting practices and the demographics of those who text while driving. They compared states where there are no bans on texting to states with such bans and found no differences in texting practices among the youth. In fact, more deaths from the practice occurred because it is possible that teenagers were hiding their phones to text while driving, so that the police would not catch them, only to be caught in the middle of vehicular accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), alcohol drinking and driving fell by 54% for the past twenty-two years, but texting only became a more frequent practice among drivers for the past seven years (Ricks, 2003). Adesman stated that teenage drivers are the most common violators of texting bans: “Fifty percent of high school students of driving age acknowledge texting while driving” (Ricks, 2003). With texting-while-driving bans being in effect for several years, Adesman’s report clearly shows that legislation is not enough to stop the harmful practice. Another article supports the findings that banning texting practices for drivers is not effective in stopping drivers from using their cellular phones for various texting reasons. Teenager drivers are the most vulnerable group because many of them are active social media users. For these young multitaskers, texting to chat or to update social networking statuses while driving is the norm. Jim Sollisch (2012), creative director at Marcus Thomas Advertising, explained that it is possible that these bans push the youth to hide their cell phones while using them on moving vehicles. He mentioned the findings of one report: “The Highway Data Loss Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, found that in 3 of 4 states that enacted texting bans, accidents actually increased after the ban went into effect” (Sollisch, 2012). Sollisch (2012) argued that texting more while driving after it is banned is a case of “unintended consequence.” Banning the practice compels some stubborn drivers into continuing the practice at greater risks because they are hiding what they are doing. Despite the unintended consequence of the ban on texting, Sollisch (2012) asserted the importance of the ban in punishing this prevalent behavior. Nonetheless, like Ricks (2003), Sollisch (2012) agreed that banning the practice alone is not sufficient in changing driving practices. The paper proceeds to explain why banning is not enough, specifically, why people, especially the youth, continue to text and drive. First, banning the practice punishes those who are caught, but not those who are not caught. The intention of drivers remains because they can text, as long as they can avoid getting caught by police officers. Joshua H. West, PhD, MPH, who is affiliated with Brigham Young University, and his colleagues (2011) studied the factors that affect Hispanic adolescent’s intention to text while driving. They employed the theory of planned behavior (TPB) in understanding the behavioral intentions of participants. According to the theory, behavioral intention is a valid predictor of human behavior, and that it has three components: 1) a person’s attitudes toward the behavior (i.e. whether the adolescent thinks that texting is a dangerous habit); 2) a person’s subjective norm (i.e. whether the adolescent thinks that it is important that the behavior gets social approval or disapproval); and 3) and “perceived behavioral control” (i.e. whether the adolescent thinks that he/she can control the behavior) (West et al., 2011, pp.37-38). West et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional survey that involved 135 high-school Hispanic students. Their findings showed that attitudes, norms, and perceived control of behavior affected the intention to evade texting while driving. They concluded the importance of educational programs that affect social context and attitudes of target recipients. They concluded that changing social norms regarding texting can shape behavioral intentions. The study and TPB are important because they demonstrate the intention of the youth to continue texting because of the social norms that impact their driving attitudes and practices. Banning the practice is just one aspect of resolving the problem, but it must be conducted together with measures that target changes in behavioral intention. The second reason that drivers continue to text and drive is that the youth has become addicted to multitasking and social networking that they forget the risks involved when certain activities are combined. David Hosansky (2012) is a staff writer for CQ Researcher and his report included interviews with teenage drivers. Yvonne Mondragon almost died while texting and driving. She knew that texting while driving is risky, but she did it anyway (Hosansky, 2012, p.403). This example shows the addiction of the youth to texting, wherein texting has come to include social networking practices, such as updating statuses and sending messages in social networking sites, e-mailing, and chatting. Eighteen-year-old Taylor Sauer knew that texting while driving was dangerous, and yet her last text said: “I can’t discuss this now. Driving and Facebooking is not safe. Haha!” (Hosansky, 2012, p.407). Only a few seconds after sending this message, her car slammed on a truck that she did not notice was slower than her. She died immediately from the crash. This illustration demonstrates the sad truth that the youth have been so used to multitasking that they have come to accept the norm of social networking while driving. They could not even wait to get to their destination to answer message alerts, or even perhaps to turn off their phones while driving. In short, in relation to the theory of planned behavior, numerous young drivers have lost their perceived behavioral control in driving because their multitasking and networking attitudes and norms have turned texting while driving a prevalent practice. Given that the youth is not fully aware of the risks of texting while driving and/or needs to be more conscious of their multitasking and networking addiction effects, the government must work with the media and the schools in educating students about how texting affects drivers, which leads to accidents and death. Education is important in changing attitudes and behaviors. It depends on the persuasiveness of the education programs though if it can attain changes in behavioral intentions. West et al. (2011) stressed the importance of education to raising awareness regarding the effects of texting on drivers: “Educational efforts and learning objectives aimed at behavior change should include functional content knowledge that is both basic, accurate, and directly contributes to risk reducing decisions” (p.41). The government must collaborate with schools in designing effective education programs that include basic and valid information. Not all students are aware of how harmful texting and driving can be, so they must be informed through various media channels, including social media, TV, and print advertisements. Melanie Wakefield and peers (2003) from the Centre for Behavioral Research in Cancer noted the role of the media in influencing adolescent attitudes, norms, and practices. The study provides evidence that media, especially social media, can be tapped as a means of changing driving practices. At present, there are existing campaigns that seek to inform the youth on texting practices, but, in order to boost these campaigns, the government should provide funds for a well-organized national campaign, where schools and communities can sustain it through conducting various consciousness-raising activities that maximize the social media. Matt Richtel (2012), a New York Times correspondent, reported about the campaign “It Can Wait” in 2010. The campaign includes showing graphic videos and commercials about people who died or had lasting illnesses because of texting while driving. The government can expand the reach of this campaign by providing funds for a centralized national effort, but with decentralization on how communities and schools would localize the issue for their constituents and students. West et al. (2011) underscored the participation of schools, parents, and communities in changing social norms. Changing social norms pertains to underscoring to the youth why texting while driving is harmful and why it can and should be stopped. Social media is a good way of informing students about the harms of texting while driving because students seem to be always online. Amanda Lenhart and colleagues (2010) prepared a report for the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. They conducted a survey in 2009, wherein 2,253 adults ages 18 and above participated, as well as 800 students from 12 to 17 years old. Their findings showed that around 65% go online daily and 73% use social networking websites, a jump of 8% from 2008. Some teenagers also tweet, but the large increase in Tweeter usage came from young adults. The study indicates that social networking has been part of the daily lives of wired American teenagers. Hence, social media is a powerful means of connecting to the youth and informing them about the harms of texting to driving. Apart from showing why texting is harmful and what it can do to drivers, tips on how to restrain the youth should also be provided. Agency Group 06 (2012), Park et al. (2013), and the U.S. News and World Report (2013) underscored the effects of texting to drivers. Agency Group 06 (2012) reported about deaths because of the practice, while Park et al. (2013) showed the results of their empirical study, where texting significantly affected physical and cognitive abilities. The U.S. News and World Report (2013) reported the results of the study from Sumie Leung Shuk Man and colleagues. Man et al. learned that texting while driving has the same effects as drunk driving because both are just as distracting. Being drunk is as bad as texting while driving because the focus is no longer on the driving. After explaining why texting is bad for drivers, tips should be given on how to stop them from the addictive practice. West et al. (2011) explained the importance of increasing the youth’s control over their driving practices. They must have a higher control through changing habits, such as turning off their phone and informing family and friends to do the same while driving. Students should be given the opportunity to also share their tips with others through official social networking sites that focus on stopping the harmful practice. Social networking is a useful tool for changing driving attitudes, norms, and behaviors. It is a potent weapon for fighting the number one killer teenager drivers. Critics might say that whatever people ask the youth to do, the latter just do what they want, so why bother. This is a valid counterargument because it is true that people have free will and they can be stubborn. However, the youth can be educated to change how they think and how they act. Hosansky (2012) reported the success of campaigns in two cities, which combined strict driving laws with “high-profile education campaigns” (p.408). If people learned how to text and drive, they can also relearn that texting should not be mixed with driving. Another criticism of the campaign is that people have freedom, so let them do what they want to do, instead of wasting taxpayers’ money. Children will text and drive, and so will adults, because they have the freedom to communicate. They have access to technology that can help them to stay online whenever and wherever they want to. It is true that people have choices, but education raises the consciousness of the youth regarding the problem and they can be convinced that the practice harms them and others around them. People can choose what is right if they know why it is right and why they must do something about it. Texting is not only distracting, it is lethal too, but the youth do not always seem to get the message. There must be a nationwide educational campaign, which the government funds and supports, against texting while driving that combines traditional (TV and print ads) and non-traditional communication (social media) approaches. The campaign will explain why texting is bad because it can affect drivers’ cognitive and physical abilities. The campaign will also share tips and promote the sharing of tips on how this practice can be stopped. The youth can change their practice only if they know why they have to. And they will, as long as society changes norms about social networking and multitasking while driving, until all drivers finally understand the risks involved in this distracting practice. Texting while driving is not fun; it is largely a killer of teenagers that society as a whole can stop together. References Agency Group 06. (2012, June 1). U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood applauds Ohio for enacting ban on texting while driving by. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=b5787eb8-fbf3-43f6-8076-c13444f3497b%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mth&AN=32W2353416746 Hosansky, D. (2012, May 4). Distracted driving: Should driver texting and cellphone use be banned? CQ Researcher, 22(17), 401-424. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?file=cqr20120504C.pdf Lenhart, A., Purcell, K.,, & Smith, A. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED525056.pdf Park, A., Salsbury, J., Corbett, K., & Aiello, J. (2013). The effects of text messaging during dual-task driving simulation on cardiovascular and respiratory responses and reaction time. The Ohio Journal of Science, 111 (2-5), 42-44. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=2597001e-613d-4bcf-9ada-001d932c1ae1%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=krh&AN=2W63467275631 Richtel, M. (2012, September 19). AT&T chief speaks out on texting at the wheel. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/technology/att-chief-speaks-out-on-texting-while-driving.html?_r=0 Ricks, D. (2013, May 8). Study: Texting while driving now leading cause of death for teen drivers. Newsday (Melville, NY). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=2597001e-613d-4bcf-9ada-001d932c1ae1%40sessionmgr13&vid=1&hid=21&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=krh&AN=2W63467275631 Sollisch, J. (2012, May 17). Inconvenient truths to a ban on texting while driving. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.terrehaute.libproxy.ivytech.edu.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/ehost/detail?sid=6132fb1e-27db-4f8d-b540-a002dc68e382%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=24&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=f5h&AN=75263859 U.S. News and World Report. (2013, May). Phones, texting may be as dangerous as alcohol for drivers. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/03/15/phones-texting-may-be-as-dangerous-as-alcohol-for-drivers Wakefield, M., Flay, B., Nichter, M., & Giovino, G. (2003). Role of the media in influencing trajectories of youth smoking. Addiction, 98, 79-103. West, J.H., Hall, P.C., Thygerson, S.M., Edwards, E.S., Bennion, S.R., & Bennet, C. (2011). Hispanic adolescents' behavioral intentions to avoid texting while driving. American Journal of Health Studies, 26(1), 37-44. Read More