The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic greatly affected educational experiences by forcing students and teachers to change their learning and instructional strategies and by disrupting life outside the classroom as well. To determine the impact of the pandemic on students varying in ability, we measured perceived pandemic disruption, objective numeracy (ONS), math interest, and other academic- and life-related outcomes in an introductory data analysis course (N = 399) that switched mid-semester from in-person to online instruction because of the pandemic. As in prior research, those higher in objective numeracy had better academic outcomes before and during the pandemic. Ability did not predict perceived disruption, but students with lower numeric self-efficacy, women, and Pell Grant recipients (indicating low socioeconomic status) experienced more pandemic disruption. Although we expected numeracy to protect academic outcomes from disruption, we observed this effect only for grades. Unexpectedly, numeracy predicted greater vulnerability to losing interest in math, such that greater perceived disruption reduced math interest for those higher in objective numeracy but not for those lower in objective numeracy. Similarly, we found a small indirect effect of objective numeracy and disruption on course enrollment via math interest. In practical terms, about 30% fewer high-objective numeracy students enrolled in the advanced statistics course when they were high rather than low in disruption. Thus, high-ability students may paradoxically perform better but feel worse when faced with unexpected hardships. Our findings highlight the importance of educators being mindful of their high-ability students’ struggles as their academic motivation may be less resilient than previously expected.

Objective: A large body of research has established that cellphone use while driving (CUWD) is common and dangerous. However, little research has been conducted about how people react psychologically to various distraction-reduction strategies and, ultimately, support or do not support them. Understanding support for reduction is important for predicting use of technological solutions and compliance with laws and for improving communication and education about the risks of CUWD. Methods: We measured support for a variety of legislative, technological, and organizational strategies to reduce CUWD in an online sample of American drivers (N ¼ 648). We also developed evidence-based communication techniques, describing strategies in terms of benefits vs. costs or using freedom-invoking vs. freedom-reducing language to assess what would influence support. Results: Support for CUWD reduction was generally high. It was predicted by driver characteristics and beliefs. For example, drivers who supported reducing CUWD more also had lower CUWD reactance, greater anti-CUWD beliefs, higher personal risk perceptions of CUWD, and greater selfreported distracted driving. Age and perceived ability to drive distracted did not predict overall support. However, two strategies that allow for handsfree phone use were supported more by people who engaged in more CUWD, perceived they had greater ability to CUWD, perceived more benefits to CUWD, had more positive affect to cellphones, and were younger. Communication techniques also influenced support. Specifically, the same strategy was supported more when described using benefits and permissive language instead of costs and restrictive language. Conclusions: Most respondents supported strategies to reduce CUWD, and beliefs about risks and benefits predicted this snupport. Reactance to CUWD messaging emerged as a key predictor of lower support (and of greater self-reported distracted driving), indicating that it could be an important variable to consider when designing strategies to reduce CUWD. When targeting people resistant to quitting CUWD entirely, communicators could recommend a switch to handsfree use. Communicators who emphasize benefits and use permissive language also may increase support for CUWD reduction.

Cell phone use while driving (CUWD) is an underreported contributor to crashes in the U.S.A. Although research indicates that the public is at least somewhat aware of its risks, law enforcement officers’ beliefs have been understudied. Officers’ attitudes are important for the following reasons: they influence citation rates; enforcement of the law is necessary to change driver behavior; and officers have experience and knowledge with respect to CUWD that the public may not. Ohio law enforcement officers ( N = 1,549) were recruited via convenience samples from multiple agencies in May 2019. We were primarily interested in officers’ support for legislative strategies and their perceptions of barriers to enforcing the law. We also assessed how they prioritized the enforcement of laws restricting CUWD relative to common automobile offenses, the level of risk they assigned to CUWD, and their estimation of CUWD frequency among Ohio drivers. We found that officers supported stronger enforcement of laws restricting CUWD (i.e., preferring primary to secondary enforcement) and viewed CUWD as risky and prevalent. Officers frequently cited secondary enforcement as an obstacle to enforcing laws restricting CUWD. Officers were less supportive of secondary enforcement in relation to CUWD because it is a less-effective version of regulation; their support for secondary enforcement was even lower if they supported primary enforcement. Drivers and policymakers may need to be educated about the problems secondary enforcement poses for law enforcement and be made aware that officers support stronger enforcement, including primary methods.