Do comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns?

K. B. Stefanidis; V. Truelove; K. Robinson; L. Mills; M. Nicolls; P. Delhomme; J. Freeman

doi:10.1080/15389588.2023.2301415

Back

Do comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns?

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Do comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns?

K. B. Stefanidis, V. Truelove, K. Robinson, L. Mills, M. Nicolls, P. Delhomme and J. Freeman

Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol.25(3), pp.364-371

2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2023.2301415

PMID: 38426905

Appears in UniSC Supported Open Access Outputs

Files and links (2)

pdf

Do comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns1.08 MBDownload View

Published Version Open Access CC BY-NC-ND V4.0

url

https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2023.2301415View

Published Version

Abstract

comparative optimism

mobile phone use while driving

road safety campaigns

comparative judgements

Objective: Given the prevalence of illegal mobile phone use while driving and reliance upon messaging campaigns in deterring the behavior, there is a need to explore to what extent comparative judgements may influence desired outcomes of such campaigns. This exploratory study investigated (a) the perceived relevance and influence of different mobile phone road safety campaigns within a sample of Queensland motorists who reported using their mobile phone while driving and (b) if these varied depending on whether participants believed that their crash risk whilst using a phone was higher (comparative pessimism), lower (comparative optimism) or similar to the same-age and sex driver. Methods: A total of 350 licensed drivers residing within Queensland (Australia) were included in this study, of which 200 reported using their hand-held phone on some occasion. Participation involved completing a 20-25 min online anonymous survey, which included viewing three mobile phone road safety campaigns (injury-based, sanction-based and humor) and responding to questions about the perceived relevance and impact of each campaign. Results: A total of 64 (32%) participants displayed comparative optimism, 50 displayed similar judgements (25%) and 86 (43%) exhibited comparative pessimism. First, it was found that the injury-based campaign was perceived to be significantly more relevant than the humor campaign. Second, whilst the relevance of each campaign did not vary as a function of group membership, the campaigns were significantly less relevant to those displaying comparative optimism relative to those with similar judgements and comparative pessimism. Finally, the injury-based campaign was perceived to be significantly more influential than the other campaigns. However, overall, participants displaying comparative optimism believed that they would be less influenced by the campaigns compared to those with comparative pessimism. Conclusions: Although preliminary, these findings suggest that low perceptions of risk may dilute or extinguish the desired behavioral outcomes of mobile phone road safety campaigns. Nonetheless, experimental research is needed to examine these effects directly.

Details

Title: Do comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns?
Authors: K. B. Stefanidis (Corresponding Author) - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
V. Truelove - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
K. Robinson - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
L. Mills - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
M. Nicolls - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
P. Delhomme - Université Paris Cité
J. Freeman - University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Road Safety Research Collaboration
Publication details: Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol.25(3), pp.364-371
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Inc.
Date published: 2024
DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2023.2301415
ISSN: 1538-957X
PMID: 38426905
Copyright note: © 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
Grant note: This research was funded by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission.
Organisation Unit: Road Safety Research Collaboration; School of Social Sciences - Legacy; School of Law and Society; Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit
Language: English
Record Identifier: 991011698502621
Output Type: Journal article

Metrics

3 File views/ downloads

84 Record Views

4 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types: Domestic collaboration; International collaboration
Web Of Science research areas: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Transportation

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: SDGs from InCites