What Clown on a Unicycle? Studying Cellphone Distraction

By Tara Parker-Pope
unicycling clownApplied Cognitive Psychology Would you notice this clown?

How much do you miss when you’re distracted by a cellphone conversation?

Researchers at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., decided to study whether talking on a cellphone was such a distraction that people wouldn’t notice obvious events happening in the world around them. They theorized that people engrossed in a phone call had “inattentional blindness,” meaning that they looked at their surroundings as they talked, but none of it registered.

But how to test the theory?

“I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”

The result is a fascinating study that suggests pedestrians who talk on cellphones are oblivious to the events around them.

In two studies, Dr. Hyman and his students monitored pedestrian traffic across a popular campus square. They tracked a total of 347 pedestrians, noting whether they were walking without distraction, listening to music, talking with a friend or talking on the phone. In the first study, they noticed that people talking on the cellphone walked more slowly, changed directions more frequently and were often weaving off course. They were also less likely to acknowledge other people with a head nod or a wave.

Now, enter the unicycling clown. The student, Dustin Randall, donned a purple-and-yellow clown costume with polka dot sleeves, red shoes and bulbous red nose. And then Mr. Randall hopped on a unicycle and began pedaling around the square for an hour. After pedestrians crossed the square, the researchers stopped the walkers and asked, “Did you see anything unusual?”

Among pedestrians who were listening to music or walking alone, one in three mentioned that they had just seen a clown on a unicycle. Nearly 60 percent of people who were walking with a friend mentioned the clown. But among people who had been talking on the cellphone, only 8 percent spontaneously remembered the clown.

Then the researchers followed up with a second question: “Did you see the unicycling clown?” With prompting, 71 percent of the people walking with a friend remembered the clown. The numbers were also higher for people listening to music (61 percent) and those who were walking alone (51 percent).

But among those who had been talking on a cellphone, the ability to recall seeing the clown still was startlingly low. Only 25 percent of cellphone talkers remembered seeing a clown on a unicycle, according to the report in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology.

“It’s a huge dropoff of awareness of the environment around them,” Dr. Hyman said. “It shows that even during as simple a task as walking, performance drops off when talking on the cellphone. They’re slower, less aware of their surroundings and weaving around more. It shows how much worse it would be if they were driving a car, which is a more complex task to manage.”

Numerous studies in driving simulators show that talking on a cellphone while driving impairs performance on a par with driving while intoxicated. In other studies in which eye movements were tracked, cellphone talkers still looked around, but they were unaware of the images passing through their perceptual field. The earliest studies of this phenomenon asked participants to count the number of times two people passed a basketball back and forth. The counters were so distracted by their task that half of them did not notice a person in a gorilla suit walking through the scene.

“They put their eyes on things, but they don’t see it,” Dr. Hyman said. “This is a funny example, but once they move onto sidewalks or where they have to worry about cars, they are putting themselves at risk.”

Dr. Hyman noted that even the study participants found it hard to believe they had failed to notice a clown on a unicycle. “They were utterly surprised they missed it,” he said. “You can think you’re doing fine and be missing all sorts of things.”

Take your own awareness test by watching this YouTube video.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Syd October 22, 2009 · 1:14 pm

I believe it. I was rear-ended by a guy driving a big pick-up truck (an old one built like a tank) doing at least 30. He just didn’t see the 3 blocks of stopped cars, in two lanes ahead of him.

Thanks to him I spent 6 years recovering and will always have injuries I’ll deal with for the rest of my life.

But I can’t tell you how many other drivers I’ve avoided — both behind the wheel myself and as a pedestrian — who were too busy with their conversations to notice the world around them such as the red lights they just went through…

Please don’t phone and drive.

jack October 22, 2009 · 1:24 pm

Lots of things cause distraction. No one disputes that cell phone use is one of them.

Laws banning their use during driving are as intrusive as laws that would ban eating, drinking, music, conversation, etc—activities that are similarly distracting.

The current study that shows inattentional blindness is interesting, but should not be extrapolated to driving. This is because walking in a campus square is less dangerous than driving, and cell phone users are likely to pay more attention to the cell phone in this setting than they are while driving.

The likely result: less inattentional blindness using the cell phone while driving than while walking.

FROM TPP — To clarify, studies do show that when drivers talk on a cellphone they are more distracted than drivers who are talking to a passenger. I haven’t seen data on how eating in the car compares to cell phone use.

emr October 22, 2009 · 1:54 pm

Given how much I hate unicyclists and clowns, I’d have run him over, cell phone or no.

FROM TPP — I knew we’d be hearing from the anti-clown contingent.

Cheryl, a member of FAAN October 22, 2009 · 2:04 pm

Syd in message one is absolutely right. Please don’t phone and drive.

Debbie October 22, 2009 · 2:22 pm

i don’t doubt it for one second. In manhattan I see many odd and obvious things when I walk around on the street (usually without headphones, or cell) that a lot of people seem to miss. I also see a lot of checking Blackberries or iPhones while crossing the street, so not only listening to a cell phone but looking down at something besides traffic — I shudder at the stupidity and wonder how many accidents have involved that.

Derek October 22, 2009 · 2:52 pm

What might be a contributing factor to this phenomenon that hasn’t yet been studied to my knowledge is the effect that cell phone audio quality has. I personally find that when I use my cell phone, I have to concentrate on the conversation to the exclusion of other things just to make out what is being said.

Digital technology was supposed to be clearer than the old analog cell system, but there are many more cell phones in use today than the infrastructure can support at full fidelity, with the result that the bandwidth available per phone in use has had to be shaved. Insufficient coverage is also a problem, with signals dropping as people move (a big problem while one or more party is driving).

In short, if I can hear my cell phone clearly, I don’t have to devote as much of my mental effort into just listening, and will therefore be more likely to notice unicycling clowns and people in bear suits.

Be October 22, 2009 · 2:53 pm

One of the worst cultural aspects of cell-phones in how they have destroyed New York walking.

Zed October 22, 2009 · 3:06 pm

“This is because walking in a campus square is less dangerous than driving, and cell phone users are likely to pay more attention to the cell phone in this setting than they are while driving.”

The unfortunate reality is that people in our contemporary society probably spend more time each day driving than walking, and this, I believe, makes driving a far more casual activity.

But there are other factors involved: Driving in a car insulates you against the sounds, smells, temperatures, and sights of the outside world (think about this the next time you see a car ad promoting a quiet interior). Why do parents run over their children’s tricycles in the driveway? Because the tricycles are hidden from direct sight by the vehicle’s structure. (By contrast, there’s no such thing as a ‘blind spot’ when you’re walking, running or riding a bicycle.)

Now throw a cell phone—a “hot” medium if ever there was one—into that mix. The driver’s arm, which hold’s the phone up to his or her ear, often creates a large additional blind spot. The phone itself drowns out more sound. The text message screen distracts the driver’s sight. The key pad takes the driver’s tactile focus off the steering wheel (typing a message or dialing a number demands a little more cognitive attention than merely holding a wheel in place).

Multitasking, it has been said, is an illusion. You’re doing one thing well and something else poorly.

Regarding passenger conversations, it’s my understanding that drivers are safer having a conversation with a passenger than talking on a cell phone because passengers tend to alert drivers to hazards.

GH October 22, 2009 · 3:16 pm

Couldn’t it just be that people are numb to everything these days because we’ve been so oversaturated by stimuli? Who cares about a dumb clown? Remember violinist Joshua Bell playing in the D.C. subway station? He’s one of the world’s greatest musician, and everyone ignored him….

Matt October 22, 2009 · 3:21 pm

Inattentional blindness is caused by lacking infinite attentional resources; when you perform two tasks you perform more poorly on both. We’re demonstrating this in a divided attention task involving what should be two VERY routine activities: The cell phone conversation (task 1) and walking (task 2) . The point of this study is to show that we have such finite attentional resources that task 1 actively demands them to the point of not even noticing a bright, moving, novel stimulus (the clown) while performing task 2.

So to clarify: If driving is a more complex task than walking in a straight line, but the phone conversation remains the same, performance on both will diminish even more. Poor audio quality could potentially create even poorer performance, but as there’s a cell tower about a mile from campus, clarity is great in Red Square (where the study was carried out), meaning that this was a best case scenario and cell phone users still failed.

David Chowes, (Ret.) Psychology Professor, Baruch College/CUNY October 22, 2009 · 3:50 pm

“WELL, what reality were you referring to? Yes, I was on my cell phone.”

Russ October 22, 2009 · 5:37 pm

To GH, #9. If people were inundated with unusual stimuli all of the time then we would expect no one to notice the unicycling clown. The fact that every group in the study performed much, much better than cell phone users (especially pairs of people talking together, who performed the best), shows that the stimulus IS novel, people DO notice it… unless they’re talking on the phone.

jack October 22, 2009 · 6:20 pm

#10 But the phone conversation would not be the same walking as driving. Prove to me that people would not adjust their conversation and their attention to it when driving, which requires more of their attention than walking.

The Healthy Librarian October 22, 2009 · 6:48 pm

#8 Zed is absolutely right–passengers alert the driver to hazards. It’s called “The back-seat driver”! Four eyes instead of two.

BC October 22, 2009 · 7:13 pm

Gosh, and I thought the obliviousness of cell-phoning pedestrians to other human beings was due mainly to plain, obnoxious selfishness.

Well, I still do. And I tend to assume a fairly high degree of willingness on the part of most drivers to jeopardize other folks’ safety to begin with; the personal auto is a selfish, excessive thing to begin with. The “I can do it all, all at the same time” mentality, combined with the rush rush rush stupidity of contemporary culture, folds into car culture very nicely. Good luck really solving this problem, unless we’re prepared to drastically reduce the number of cars on the road, and vastly increase the penalties for traffic infractions.

Anti- jaywalking laws have to be aggressively enforced too. (Personally, I should have been fined into the poor-house for my jaywalking by now. Since clearly I have to have eyes and ears and attention for both me and for drivers, I’ve begun breaking myself of that bad habit.)

It’s a great study; but I hope the unicycling clown doesn’t distract policy makers from the importance of the issue. People are still trying to pretend that everything’s fine as long as they use a hands-free system.

Linda October 22, 2009 · 8:07 pm

Another study showed that passengers adjust their conversation to the situation. Since a car passenger can also see the wreck up ahead or the police car behind them or the deer in the road, they usually quit speaking while the driver is at the task. But the person on the other end of a call doesn’t see the distraction and doesn’t adjust his speech to the situation. So the boss just keeps yelling or the customer keeps demanding an estimate or the spouse keeps giving the shopping list even though a construction worker with a stop sign just stepped in front of the car.

MM October 22, 2009 · 11:43 pm

Re #13:

Drews et al. 2008. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Vol. 14, No. 4, 392–400

Abstract:
“This study examines how conversing with passengers in a vehicle differs from conversing on a cell phone while driving. We compared how well drivers were able to deal with the demands of driving when conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and when driving without any distraction. In the conversation conditions, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about past experiences
in which their life was threatened. The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increase in the demand of the traffic. The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influence on the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversation on driving.”

Colin Wright October 23, 2009 · 2:43 am

Cell phones have their points.

For one thing, people no longer assume you’re a lunatic if you’re walking down the sidewalk having an animated conversation with someone who isn’t there.

In fact, I’ve often thought we could help the more deranged members of our homeless community fit in with the rest of society if we just gave them dead cell phones. Then they could happily rave away, gesticulate, etc without alienating those around them.

Of course, since I suspect they’re desperate for attention from a world that is trying to ignore them, this might just drive them to more extreme measures.

thorn October 23, 2009 · 3:28 am

jack- determined to drive and phone…
I think i’ll keep my head in the sand and off the street where it is safe.
My personal favorite is the woman who made a left across traffic in front of me almost killing me on my motorcycle- and held up her phone, mouthing an apology for not signaling- “i was on the phone”

scaramouchex October 23, 2009 · 4:34 am

Oh please!

The fatal flaw in this study is that people were walking! not driving!
Drivers would be so much more aware, as the consequences of malfunctioning would be so much greater.
Walking has no ‘accidents’, no rear end collisions, no t-boning at intersections, no speeding tickets, no policemen.
No, this study only shows that walkers are so relaxed and confident, they can safely put all of their focus on their cell phone conversation!
Walking demands much less attention

FROM TPP — Every study of the issue shows just the opposite. A driver using a cell phone is as impaired as a drunk driver. And distracted walking does indeed result in injury and death.

richard October 23, 2009 · 5:28 am

Interesting how cell phone users are so defensive and irrational – much like alcoholic drivers. The culture has to change.

Ed in Munich October 23, 2009 · 7:42 am

Lets take this experiment one step further.

Have the unicycling clown on a mobile call and see how long he could keep his balance.

Michael Leiter October 23, 2009 · 7:50 am

The study alludes to a disconnect between confidence and performance: Feeling confident about performance does not equal competent performance. But that feeling of confidence can trump information about the impact of distractions, sleep loss, alcohol, or illness on performance. And driving a car is the most widespread activity in the world that has the potential to seriously injure oneself and others. But a lot of folks injure themselves walking while conversing, texting, or reading. Participating in a conversation consumes more mental bandwidth than listening.

A parallel process: Inspirational speakers can raise audience members’ confidence without providing the substantive skills, attention span, or time that could make a difference in their work.

How’s that for a segue?
Michael
//www.workengagement.com

nancy October 23, 2009 · 9:23 am

Cell phone records should become a part of legal proceedings in an accident. Juries will have the option to consider whether or not a person was on a phone when they were involved in the accident.

Stiff drunk driving laws AND penalties AND enforcement have combined to increase awareness and decrease drunk driving. My children share “designated-driver” duty now for social events, unheard of when I was in college.

We as a society can use LAWS + PENALTIES + ENFORCEMENT to change cell phone use during driving. Until then, it’s driver beware. I’ve avoided 3 accidents in the past 3 months where people on phones ran stop signs.

Cathy-in-Canton October 23, 2009 · 9:33 am

I was shown the basketball-passing-with-gorilla video once and asked to count the ball passes. Yes, I totally missed the gorilla! I thought the presenter was pulling my leg when I was asked about a gorilla, until the video was replayed for me!

However, the video was considerably more complicated than two people passing a basketball back and forth. There was a ring of several people randomly passing the basketball to another person; counting this requires much more attention than having the ball simply move between two people.

That was quite an eye-opening experience!