User:Bdconner/sandbox

My plan for the Wikipedia article assignment is to use the material from my application paper to update the already existing article about seat belts. In the "Seat belt" Wikipedia article is a "Reminder chime and light" heading. This section will be the ideal location for my edits as my application paper topic was "Seat Belt Reminder Systems". In my opinion, the format of my paper lends itself well to the formatting of these Wikipedia edits. My paper consisted of five sections: nature of the problem, psychological application, effectiveness, ethics, and social and historical context. I will use these subheadings to add my information to the existing information, and to organize the section better. However I will change the sections around a bit to streamline the information and make it more chronological.

The first subheading I will add is "Social and Historical Context". In this section, I will discuss the state of psychology, the American motor vehicle industry, and the state of America during wartime, and how these factors contributed to the development and evolution of SBRs.

The next subheading I will add is "Nature of the Problem". Here I will include information about the safety of seat belts during the 1970s, the feud between Congress and the NHSTA, and the development of SBRs and ESBRs. under the "Reminder chime and light" heading in the existing article is information regarding the nature of the seat belt problem. This information expands upon my own information regarding seat belts in the 1970s, so I will include that information in this section.

Third, I will feature the "Psychological Application" subheading. In this section I will discuss Mowrer's two-factor theory of avoidance and the application of his theory to SBRs and ESBRs. In this section I will include links to other Wikipedia articles concerning Mowrer, two-factor theory of avoidance, etc...

After discussing SBRs and their psychological applications, the fourth subheading I will feature is "Effectiveness". Here I will discuss the evolution of seat belt use and safety since the 1970s, due to SBR systems, as well as the modern research on the potential effectiveness of well developed ESBR systems.

Finally, I will feature the "Ethics" subheading. Under this subheading I will discuss the ethics behind applying a psychological theory to a utilitarian safety device such as a seat belt. I will outline the potential conflict of interest between the NHSTA, Congress, and employed psychologists, the potential corruption of sound psychology when money is involved, as well as the "big brother" concept, or the idea that using psychology to keep people safe could be perceived as manipulative or controlling.

Additionally, my paper also includes nine new sources that are not included in the existing reference list on the Seat Belt Wikipedia article. I add these references to the existing list and note the cited information in the body of my work as well.

Social and historical context
At the time seat belt reminder systems were conceived of and becoming popularized (the 1970s), the field of psychology was undergoing a major shift. In fact, “in the last half of the twentieth century, applied psychology outstripped the academic, research-oriented psychology that had dominated for so many years.” As a result, psychologists were less and less carrying out their careers in academic settings, opting more for work in applied areas. The involvement of psychologists in organizations like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), then, makes sense, as psychologists during this time were eager to apply what they had learned during their training in real world settings. Additionally, the automotive industry was likely eager to encourage the involvement of psychologists for reasons previously discussed, but also as a reflection of the changing times; psychology was growing in prominence and reputation. The locomotive industry in the U.S. really took off in the 1800s, but the rise of applied psychology in the late 1900s could explain why, up to that point, nobody had thought to use psychological concepts to enhance motor vehicle safety.

It’s also interesting to note that the automotive industry had a rough time in the 1970s. The Vietnam War hit the American economy hard, leaving all industries struggling to maintain consumers. The 1970s brought along increased gas prices due to an oil crisis that left many Americans and Europeans unable to buy fuel for the cars they did own. Along with the oil crisis came a concern about the environmental effects of gas and emissions, and the realization that oil was not a renewable resource as a result of the environmentalist movement of the decade. There was also an increased concern for the safety of drivers, which possibly stemmed from the concern about safety in the workplace that came to the forefront of the early 1970s when President Nixon signed OSHA. To top it all off, insurance rates were rising as well. The 1970s is noted for being a tumultuous time in our nation’s history, as the U.S. was war-torn and the country saw the struggle of minority groups for equal rights. At a time when the automotive industry was struggling to make advances and appease consumers, perhaps the integration of a seat belt safety system made for a good way to do both, offering the unsettled citizens of America a little peace in the process.

Nature of the problem
In 1970, police collected data demonstrating a total of 40,000 people involved in car crashes during a time when seat belt use ranged from merely 12% - 15%. In North America, cars sold since the early 1970s have included an audiovisual reminder system consisting of a light on the dashboard and a buzzer or chime reminding the driver and passengers to fasten their belts. Originally, these lights were accompanied by a warning buzzer whenever the transmission was in any position except park if either the driver was not buckled up or, as determined by a pressure sensor in the passenger's seat, if there was a passenger there not buckled up. However, this was considered by many to be a major annoyance, as the light would be on and the buzzer would sound continuously if front-seat passengers were not buckled up. Therefore, people who did not wish to buckle up would defeat this system by fastening the seat belts with the seat empty and leaving them that way. To combat this dangerous habit, in 1971 the NHTSA adopted an "occupant protection option” for vehicles built between August of 1973 and August of 1975. This option operated on an interlocking system, meaning that the car would not start until all of the front seat belts were secured. However, the public did not care for this system either. Many customers found ways to evade or even disable the system, and as a result of this reaction, in 1974 Congress prohibited the NHTSA from mandating safety requirements for vehicles. Congress, instead, took on the responsibility to require that the “driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under circumstances when the driver's seat belt is not buckled, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on”. This technology is referred to as a “seat belt reminder system”, or SBR system, and has been used as the standard of vehicle safety since the mid-1970s.

Later on, some manufacturers began replacing buzzer-based warning systems with a chime system, including the seat belt warning system; the idea was that the chimes were "gentler" than the buzzer. The first U.S. car model to offer this system was the 1976 Cadillac Seville, and this system eventually replaced the buzzer system by the early 1990s. In the mid-1990s, an insurance company from Sweden called Folksam worked with Saab and Ford to determine the requirements for the most efficient seat belt reminder, and implemented technology based on these requirements in the late 1990s. A defining characteristic of this new technology was that “the warning became increasingly penetrating the more seconds the seat belt hadn't been worn”. Additionally, according to the NHSTA (2009), various automobile manufacturers are currently pushing to implement enhanced seat belt reminder (EBSR) systems into their products. EBSR systems take the federally mandated system, as well as the Swedish SBR system of the 1990s, even a step further by integrating an even more persistent warning system when occupants are not belted. EBSR systems “range from very simple displays (e.g., flashing icon) to complex, multistage systems triggered by driving status (e.g., speed, travel distance) and feature multiple types of visual, acoustic, voice, and possibly even haptic (tactile) displays, as well as interlocks, delays, or limitations on some aspect of vehicle performance”.

Today, the belt warning light may stay on for several minutes after the car is started if the driver's seat belt is not fastened, although the chime/buzzer will sound for only a few seconds when the key was turned to the "on" position.

In Europe and some other parts of the world, most modern cars include a seat-belt reminder light for the driver and some also include a reminder for the passenger, when present, activated by a pressure sensor under the passenger seat. Some cars will intermittently flash the reminder light and sound the chime until the driver (and sometimes the front passenger, if present) fasten their seatbelts.

Psychological application
SBR systems and EBSR systems employ the psychological concept of the two-factor theory of learning, or the two-factor theory of avoidance. In the mid-20th century psychologists were so enamored with the learning theories proposed by Pavlov (classical conditioning) and Skinner (operant conditioning) that they were seen as practically universal. However, critiques of learning theory during this time proposed that neither classical nor operant conditioning accounted for the entirety of the conditioning process. It was Hobard Mowrer who introduced the two-factor theory which focused on the relationship between classical and operant conditioning. To demonstrate his theory, Mowrer conducted experiments with rats using a shuttlebox, or a box divided into two compartments that could be jumped over to reach the next compartment. Rats were shocked following the sound of a buzzer, the unconditioned stimulus, which evoked a sense of fear and pain, the unconditioned response. After a few trials, eventually the rats associated the sound of the buzzer with the pain and fear of the shock, and even when the shocks were taken away the rats responded to the buzzer (now the conditioned stimulus) with fear. At this point in Mowrer’s experimentation, he had examined the tenets of Pavlov’s classical conditioning. But then Mowrer delved into Skinner’s operant conditioning as well, noting that the rat had learned to react to its environment differently; it learned an adaptive response. At the sound of the buzzer, the rat learned to jump over the barrier to escape the shock and reduce its own fear as a means of negative reinforcement, the strengthening of a behavior via the removal of an unpleasant stimulus. SBR systems and ESBR systems work in essentially this same way. Two-factor theory of avoidance is echoed in daily behaviors such as seat belt use. People experience the noise (unconditioned stimulus) of an SBR system, or even the more advanced and diverse haptic, visual, or acoustic warnings of the ESBR system, when they do not buckle their seat belt. For most people, this noise produces an emotional reaction: aggravation or annoyance, or perhaps even the fear of a fatal crash (unconditioned response). After failing to secure the seatbelt multiple times, the individual will begin to pair the noise (now the conditioned stimulus) with the aggravated or fearful emotions. The individual then learns an adaptive response to the SBR system, and secures the seat belt to get rid of the unfavorable emotions. The securing of the seat belt acts as negative reinforcement. Thus, in theory, SBR systems and ESBR systems work to strengthen the behavior of wearing a seat belt by encouraging individuals to get rid of the unpleasant stimulus to which they have become conditioned. Thus demonstrating the work of Mowrer in that we see a combination of both classical and operant conditioning at play.

Effectiveness
The transition from the occupant protection option of the 1970s to the current SBR system has shown significant increases in seat belt use. As previously noted, the early 1970s saw a seat belt use percentage of between 12% and 15%. In 2001, Congress directed the NHSTA to study the benefits of technology meant to increase the use of seat belts. The NHSTA found that seat belt usage had increased to 73% since the initial introduction of the SBR system by Congress. Additionally, automotive manufacturers have conducted their own studies. In 2002, Ford demonstrated that seat belts were used more in Fords with seat belt reminders than in those without one: 76% and 71% respectively. In 2007, Honda conducted a similar study and found that 90% of people who drove Hondas with seat belt reminders used a seat belt, while 84% of people who drove Hondas without seat belt reminders used a seat belt. With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that the use of a seat belt reduces an individual’s chance of fatality in a car crash by 50%, it would seem that the SBR system is doing its part to protect lives in automobiles. Despite copious amounts of evidence that the SBR system increases seat belt use, there are those who still believe the automobile industry can do better. Thus, much modern research has been focused on the potential of the ESBR system. In 2003, the Transportation Research Board Committee, chaired by two psychologists, reported that EBSR systems have the potential to save an additional 1,000 lives a year. According to the committee’s research, an EBSR system that is much more persistent than what is federally mandated could increase seat belt use by up to five percentage points. The study cited research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for Ford on their new Beltminder system which “chimes intermittently for up to five minutes, sounding for 6 seconds then pausing for 30, if a driver fails to buckle up. It increased seat belt use by 5 percent”. Additional research strengthens the push for EBSR systems. Farmer and Wells (2010) compared “driver fatality rates per vehicle registration per year to otherwise identical vehicle models with and without enhanced seat belt reminders” for the years 2000 – 2007. They found that “driver fatality rates were 6% lower for vehicles with enhanced seat belt reminders compared with vehicles without enhanced belt reminders”. Thus, while seat belt reminder systems, both enhanced and not, appear to increase seat belt usage, it also seems that, the more aggressive the system, the more likely an individual is to buckle up. Interestingly, this finding contradicts the happenings in the 1970s, wherein people became frustrated with the occupant protection option and Congress stripped the NHTSA of their right to regulate motor vehicles as a result.

Ethics
A couple of ethical concerns can be raised when considering the SBR system. Initially, there may be a conflict of interest where the research is involved. As has already been mentioned, the NHTSA includes members who are practicing psychologists. Conducting sound research for the NHTSA may be compromised when the organization is signing a psychologist’s paycheck. There is always the possibility that a specific automotive company may take advantage of a psychologist’s abilities in a way similar to the high number of psychologists that are employed by the Department of Defense. While it is likely that there are plenty more members of the APA working for the Department of Defense than there are working for the NHTSA, ethics may become conflicted during research or testing in this capacity. Additionally, the tension between Congress and the NHTSA may exacerbate this potential for conflict. The NHTSA does not believe there was any scientific grounding in Congress’ 1974 decision to ban them from regulating the safety features of motor vehicles. Using psychological science as a way to increase the safety of drivers or even yield sound research may walk too close to the line of exploitation should the NHTSA desire to one-up Congress and demonstrate their value as a decision-making organization. You can never be too sure of a person’s motive when money is involved. The implementation of a seat belt reminder that operates on the psychological concept of two-factor avoidance theory seems like a great idea; businesses, with the help of psychologists, used the psychological advances of the 20th century to help save lives. However, the automotive companies that implement seat belt reminders are also able to capitalize on the safety of their product. Companies like Ford and Saab, the first to really utilize the technology, were undoubtedly making a lot of money off of their ability to claim the safety of their consumers. Thus, corporations can find a way to make money and become front-runners of the industry under the guise of being concerned about protection and safety. In light of this notion, one could wonder if big corporations ever truly abide by their missions to help people and change the community, or if they only appear to be interested in the consumer just to get the consumer’s money. Finally, there are those who really do not want to wear one, or “don’t want their car to tell them what to do.” With this in mind, it could be argued that the implementation of the two-factor theory of avoidance into SBR systems is a way to manipulate people into wearing a seat belt when they do not desire to. While we are taught in intro-psych that psychology is not about mind-control, in the case of some applications of the science, psychology is arguably manipulative. As the evidence has demonstrated, the more advanced seat belt reminders get, the more people will secure their seat belts. One may believe an SBR system takes away his or her free will in a "big brother" fashion.