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

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

• Comparative judgements
• comparative optimism
• mobile phone use while driving
• road safety campaigns

Introduction

Improving road safety remains a paramount issue given the estimated 1.3 million road fatalities recorded per annum worldwide (World Health Organization 2022). Of particular concern is the problem of distracted driving stemming from mobile phone use, as the behavior has been identified a significant cognitive distraction and risk factor for motor vehicle collisions (Asbridge et al. 2013; Oviedo-Trespalacios et al. 2016; WHO 2022). More specifically, it can increase the risk of a crash by up to 400 per cent (WHO 2022) and produce a range of additional negative health and social issues (e.g., Seo et al. 2016; Thomée et al. 2011). Such offending has resulted in the implementation of an array of countermeasures to mitigate the problem (e.g., police and camera enforcement), although increasing motorists’ awareness of the risks associated with rule violations through driver education or media campaigns remains a foundational approach (Lewis et al. 2021). This latter approach is particularly important given that research has demonstrated motorists: (a) are inclined to conceal such behaviors, making apprehension more difficult (Gauld et al. 2014; Truelove et al. 2021), and (b) may experience social pressure to send text messages (Nemme and White 2010). Taken together, the existence of such beliefs place further emphasis on the importance of developing effective education messages that create lasting behavioral change.

Type and effectiveness of campaigns

Within Australia, road safety messaging campaigns have focused heavily upon the utilization of threat appeals to elicit fear (Gauld et al. 2017; Lewis et al. 2007b), such as sustaining injuries or being fatally injured. However, the effectiveness of these campaigns remains inconclusive, with studies reporting inconsistent results. It has been suggested that drivers have become desensitized to these messaging campaigns (Kaye et al. 2015; Lewis et al. 2007c,) and are thus unlikely to be influenced by them. Some studies have also investigated the role of humor-based appeals in promoting behavior change. However, the effectiveness of humor-based approaches in reducing illegal driving behaviors has not been clearly established. For example, there is research to suggest that humor-based approaches may be perceived as inappropriate (Hawkins et al. 2017). Meanwhile, other research has demonstrated that humor-based road safety messages may be considered more effective than fear-based messages (Lewis et al. 2018). While there have been attempts to examine which appeal type (threat/humor) has the greatest impact on desirable intentions and attitudes for risky driving (e.g., speeding/drink driving) (e.g., Lewis et al. 2008; Lewis et al. 2013), the findings vary depending on the population of interest, indicating that there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, particularly for emotion-based messages (Lewis et al. 2013).

Campaigns can also be used to reinforce existing enforcement measures for offending behavior. For example, they may be used to increase perceptions of the perceived certainty of being caught for the offense (Delhomme et al. 2009; Fleiter et al. 2013), as well as to influence values related to the law (Fleiter et al. 2013). Based on deterrence theory, a high perceived certainty of being apprehended for an offense and severity of the punishment are some of the most important components needed for an individual to be effectively deterred (Homel 1988; Piquero et al. 2011). A large number of resources have been expended in numerous jurisdictions worldwide to increase factors that deter phone use while driving. For example, In Queensland, Australia (where this study takes place), the punishment for this behavior was increased to a $1000 fine and 4 demerit points and mobile phone detection cameras were implemented in late 2021 (Queensland Government 2022). The high certainty of being apprehended and severity of punishment can only be a general deterrent for the population if drivers are aware of these factors (Beccaria 1764/2007; Piquero et al. 2011; Truelove et al. 2019). Therefore, campaigns that raise such awareness can be considered a necessary additional countermeasure to be used in conjunction with these legal sanctions.

In regard to the effectiveness of messaging campaigns, the majority of studies have focussed primarily on “message evaluation” and “behavioural intentions” (e.g., Gauld et al. 2017; Hill et al. 2019; Lewis et al. 2008), with fewer studies examining their short and long-term impact on behavior. In addition, the evidence for program effectiveness in the road safety domain is fractured across different types of rule violations (e.g., speeding, impaired driving, mobile phone use), and thus current knowledge is dependent upon aggregate evaluations (of all offense types combined) rather than campaigns that focus on specific offense types. Researchers have also identified additional issues regarding the operationalization and measurement of “campaign effectiveness” (Lewis et al. 2009). Nevertheless, some positive results have emerged from “message evaluations” that focused on reducing the use of smart phones while driving (e.g., Gauld et al. 2017), drink driving (e.g., Tay 2005), and actual speeding behaviors measured on highways (although positive rather than negative signs produced the greatest effect, e.g., Chaurand et al. 2015). In regard to fear messages, research has also shown that such messages can reduce engagement in other offenses such as jaywalking (Shiwakoti et al. 2020). In contrast, there is evidence to indicate that threat appeals do not create lasting change, including a meta-analysis that indicated that while the content can increase fear arousal, it does not equate to changes in driving outcomes (Carey et al. 2013). It is also apparent that the link between the concepts remains poorly understood and is likely to be very complex and influenced by numerous factors (e.g., personality traits; D'Souza and Tay 2016).

Cohort differences in message saliency

Arguably, a critical limitation of the messaging approach is that it relies heavily upon perceptions of risk, which is a complex phenomenon that can differ between individuals as well as settings. For example, Yates and Stone (1992) identified three components that underlie the construct of risk (e.g., loss, severity of the loss and perceived susceptibility or uncertainty around experiencing such loss) and thus formulisations of risk involve a range of cognitions, including calculations about personal harm. These elements have been proposed to determine an individual’s calculation of overall risk as well as possibly dilute an alternative option (So 2013). Therefore, and similar to models of deterrence, formulating perceptions of risk involves utility-based decision making, in that an individual must weigh up the pros and cons associated with engaging in a behavior. Other researchers, however, have proposed that the process may also involve an “affective aspect” that can include feelings (Loewenstein et al. 2001; Slovic et al. 2004). Within the road safety arena, the Step Approach to Message Design and Testing (SatMDT) framework developed by Lewis et al. (2016) includes the assessment of individual emotional and cognitive responses, although consideration of the audiences’ possible biases that can dilute or extinguish the message appears to have generally been overlooked. At the very least, there may be value (when examining the impact of media campaigns) to simultaneously consider motorists’ perceptions regarding the relevance of such risks to oneself (which is discussed below).

Comparative optimism

An area of risk analysis receiving increasing attention is comparative optimism bias, which in a driving context, refers to the perception that one is less likely to experience negative outcomes when compared to other drivers (White et al. 2011). Preliminary research has indicated that many drivers display this bias toward their driving skills, with 59% reporting above average driving skills, while only 8% reported having inferior driving skills (Delhomme 1991). However, comparative judgments can be considered realistic or unrealistic, depending on ones’ actual engagement in risky behaviors and true driving ability (Martha and Delhomme 2014). A recent study by Mills et al. (2021) found that while drivers generally demonstrated greater optimism (about crash risk and driving ability) compared to other drivers, those who more frequently exceeded the speed limit recognized they were at an increased risk of incurring negative outcomes (and displayed comparative pessimism). However, such participants also displayed comparative optimism in their driving ability, highlighting the complex nature of comparative judgments and risk perceptions in relation to driving.

A danger of CO is that while drivers may agree with messaging in campaigns, they do not perceive the information as personally relevant and thus, safety advertising campaigns may be subsequently diluted. Despite the lack of research, an initial hypothesis may be that individuals exhibiting CO may not perceive accident risk as personally relevant and thus, dismiss the importance of the message imbedded within any type of campaign (e.g., sanction-based, humor or education). This is consistent with Lewis et al.’s (2008) suggestion that individuals who perceive messages as having a direct impact on their life will be more motivated to change. Importantly however, research has yet to consider the role of such comparative biases in influencing campaign effectiveness, and whether certain messages may be more salient or personally relevant to certain subgroups of the population.

Research aims

Given the ongoing prevalence of illegal mobile phone use and the subsequent reliance upon messaging campaigns, there is a need to determine whether the saliency and relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns vary depending on perceptions of personal risk. Given this, the overarching aims of this exploratory study were to:

1. Explore the perceived relevance and influence of different mobile phone road safety campaigns (namely, injury-based, sanction and humor) within a sample of Queensland motorists who reported using their mobile phone while driving.

2. Explore whether the perceived relevance and influence of these campaigns vary 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

Participants

A total of 350 licensed drivers residing within Queensland (Australia) were included in this study. Eligibility requirements for this study included: aged 17 years and over, resided in Queensland (Australia) and held a current Queensland driver’s license (either learner, provisional or open license).

Materials and procedures

Participants for this study were recruited online via paid Facebook advertising, general social media posts, Gumtree and snowball sampling. In addition, participants were recruited through the University of the Sunshine Coast student/staff newsletters and research participation system, with first year psychology students receiving one course credit. Finally, participants were recruited in-person using QR codes. Participation involved completing a 20-25 min online anonymous survey. Participants were given the option to enter a prize draw to win one of 10 AUD$50 Online WISH Gift Cards. Ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics Committee (S211561). Informed consent was obtained in writing via a secure online Qualtrics form.

Measures

The survey was designed to collect the following data of interest: demographic information/participant characteristics, attitudes toward, and engagement in, illegal hand-held mobile phone use while driving, perceptions concerning their crash risk relative to others of the same age and sex (comparative judgements) and the perceived relevance and influence of the three road safety campaigns (falling under three categories: injury, humor and sanctions).

Demographic information

Participants were asked to complete items concerning their age, gender, license type, average number of driving hours per week and driving/crash history via a yes or no response (e.g., Have you ever been caught using a phone while driving (hand-held use only)?).

Attitudes toward and engagement in illegal mobile phone use while driving

Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believe it is unacceptable (1) to acceptable (7) to use a hand-held phone use while driving (Lewis et al. 2008; adapted). In addition, participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they engaged in the following hand-held phone use behaviors, on a scale from 0% to 100% (every time I drive): talking on the phone, sending/reading messages, taking/sending videos or pictures, playing music/changing songs, using social media, using navigation and using other applications. Participants were also asked to indicate how often they used a mobile phone when in a cradle or sitting on a surface in the car.

Comparative judgements

Two items measured comparative judgements, which were adapted from Martha and Delhomme (2009). The items included “What is your probability of being involved in a road traffic accident in comparison with that of the average same-age and same-sex Australian driver?” and “What is your probability of being involved in a road traffic accident whilst using your mobile phone, in comparison to that of the average same-age, same-sex Australian driver?”. Responses ranged from −3 (much less likely) to 3 (much more likely). The latter item was used to categorize participants into groups, since the road safety campaigns pertained to mobile phone use while driving (with lower ratings (-3, −2, −1) indicating comparative optimism, ratings of 0 indicating similar judgements, and higher ratings (1, 2, 3) indicating comparative pessimism).

Mobile phone road safety campaigns

Participants were each exposed to three types of road safety campaigns (injury, sanctions and humor-based, see Table A1, supplementary material). Selection of the campaigns were determined via an online pilot survey distributed to a team of researchers employed within the MAIC/UniSC Road Safety Research Collaboration at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Campaign selection was then confirmed during a subsequent consensus meeting with the same team. The team also ensured that the campaigns were all videos of a similar length and focused specifically on either an injury, sanctions or humor-based message. The order of presentation was randomized across participants to minimize the carry-over effects for the exploratory analyses.

Perceived relevance of the mobile phone road safety campaigns

Participants were asked “How relevant is the advertisement to you and your driving?” on a scale from 1 (not relevant at all) to 7 (extremely relevant) (Lewis et al. 2008).

Perceived influence of the mobile phone road safety campaigns

Two items measured the extent to which participants believed that the message was influential to themselves and other drivers. Participants were asked to respond to these items in the same order: “You yourself would be influenced by the advertisement” and “Other drivers in general would be influenced by the advertisement”. Responses ranged from 1 (not influential at all) to 7 (extremely influenced) (Lewis et al. 2008).

Opinions surrounding what constitutes an effective campaign for mobile phone use while driving

Finally, for exploratory purposes, participants were asked “If you were to design a road safety campaign to reduce illegal mobile phone use, what would be in it?” Participants were asked to enter in their responses into a text box which enabled participants to enter as much information as possible.

Statistical analyses

First, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to identify differences between the comparative judgment groups in attitudes toward mobile phone use while driving. Second, a 3 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA was conducted to determine the relevance of each type of campaign, and whether effects varied as a function of group membership. A second 3 × 3 mixed factorial ANOVA was used to determine differences in the perceived influence of each campaign, and whether this varied depending on the group. Since the within-subjects factor (i.e., campaign type) had more than two levels, a Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied. Magnitude of effects were interpreted via Cohen’s d, with values of .2 indicating a small effect, .5 a medium effect and .8 indicating a large magnitude effect (Cohen 1988). Finally, open-ended responses were coded by one author (MN) to determine which type of campaigns were thought to be most effective in reducing mobile phone use while driving.

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 350 participants aged between 17 and 87 years (mean age = 42.0, SD = 20.0) were involved in this study, of which 215 were female (61.4%; other n = 5, 1.4%). A large proportion of the sample held an open license (n = 274, 78.3%), while the remaining held a provisional 1 (n = 29, 8.3%), provisional 2 (n = 28, 8.0%) or learner’s license/permit (n = 19, 5.4%). On average, participants reported spending approximately 10 h per week driving (ranging from 1 to 58 h per week). A total of 47 (13.4%) participants reported they had previously lost their license (suspended or disqualified) on at least one occasion, and 12 (3.4%) participants had previously been caught for using their mobile phone while driving. Seventy-six participants (21.7%) reported that they had caused a road accident when they were the driver on some occasion, of which 4 (1.1%) reported that a hand-held phone was involved in the most recent accident.

Attitudes toward and engagement in hand-held mobile phone use while driving

Overall, participants believed that it was unacceptable to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving (M = 1.42, SD = .88, with 1 = unacceptable and 7 = acceptable). Only a subgroup of participants completed the mobile phone use while driving items. Note that some participants only responded to certain items, making it difficult to generate a frequency of mobile phone use while driving metric. Nonetheless, across the behaviors, it was found that a total of 200 participants admitted to using a hand-held mobile phone on some occasion, with 89 participants reporting that they never engage in the behaviors. The total number of participants who responded to each item, and the averaged frequency which with they reported engaging in the behavior, are reported in Table 1. The remaining analyses are conducted within the subsample (n = 200) of participants who admitted using a mobile phone while driving (hand-held) on some occasion.

Table 1. Frequency of engagement in mobile phone use while driving behaviours.

Frequency of engagement in mobile phone use while driving (% of the time while driving)	n	M	SD
Hand-held mobile phone use only
Talking on the phone	232	6.33	16.95
Sending/reading messages	245	7.16	16.27
Taking/sending videos or pictures	215	2.27	9.07
Playing music/changing songs	270	16.57	29.15
Using social media	217	2.42	8.31
Using navigation	281	15.52	24.41
Using other applications	215	2.70	8.50
Hands-free mobile phone use
Use phone when it is in a cradle	264	19.76	30.70
Use phone when it is sitting on a surface in your car	261	15.42	25.06

Comparative judgements and phone use while driving

In relation to participants’ perceived probability of being involved in a road traffic accident (compared to others within Australia of the same age and sex), 97 participants (48.5%) believed that their risk was less than that of a similar driver (and hence displayed comparative optimism). Further, a total of 89 participants (44.5%) displayed similar judgements, in that they believed that their risk was similar to that of a similar driver. Finally, a total of 14 participants (7%) believed that their risk of crashing was higher compared to a similar driver (comparative pessimism).

In regard to crashing whilst using a mobile phone while driving, 64 participants (32.0%) believed their risk was less than that of a similar driver. Further, 50 participants (25.0%) displayed similar judgements, while the remaining 86 (43.0%) displayed comparative pessimism, believing their risk was higher than that of a similar driver. Again, this item was used to classify the groups in this study, since the campaigns pertained to mobile phone use while driving. A one-way ANOVA indicated no significant difference in attitudes toward mobile phone use while driving amongst the comparative judgment groups (p = .938).

Relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns as a function of group

A mixed factorial ANOVA revealed an overall main effect of campaign type, F(2, 388) = 4.31, p < .015. Follow-up comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted) revealed that the injury campaign was significantly more relevant than the humor campaign, albeit exhibiting a small magnitude effect (p = .14, d = .16). No other significant differences were observed in relevance ratings across campaigns (all p ≥ .249).

A significant main effect of group was also observed, F(2,197) = 9.45, p < .001. Follow-up comparisons revealed that the campaigns were significantly less relevant to the comparative optimism group compared to the comparative pessimism (p < .001) and similar judgment groups (p = .010). No significant difference emerged between the similar judgment and pessimism group. Note that no significant interaction was observed between campaign type and group, indicating that the relevance of each campaign did not vary as a function of group. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 2 (see Figure 1 for visual representation).

Figure 1. Relevance of each campaign as a Function of group.

Table 2. Mean Relevance ratings for each campaign as a Function of group.

	Injury	Sanction	Humor
	Mean (SD)
Overall Sample	4.25 (2.10)	4.05 (2.06)	3.92 (2.05)
Comparative Optimism	3.42 (1.98)	3.20 (1.92)	3.27 (2.00)
Similar Judgements	4.50 (2.09)	4.40 (2.04)	3.96 (1.93)
Comparative Pessimism	4.73 (2.01)	4.48 (1.99)	4.40 (2.04)

Extent to which participants believed they would be influenced by the message

No significant interaction was observed between campaign type and group (p = .572). However, a significant main effect of campaign type was observed (F(2, 383) = 8.0, p = <.001), indicating that the injury campaign was perceived as significantly more influential than the sanction (p < .001) and humor campaigns (p = .005). However, these differences exhibited small magnitude effects (d = .24 and .21, respectively). In addition, a main effect of group was observed, F(2,195) = 5.51, p = .005. Follow up comparisons revealed the campaigns were perceived to be significantly less influential in the comparative optimism group compared to the comparative pessimism group (p = .004). Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 3 (see Figure 2 for visual representation).

Figure 2. Perceived influence of each campaign as a function of group.

Table 3. Mean perceived influence of each campaign as a function of group.

	Injury	Sanction	Humor
	Mean (SD)
Overall Sample	4.87 (1.78)	4.42 (1.90)	4.50 (1.83)
Comparative Optimism	4.41 (1.79)	3.94 (1.93)	3.92 (1.96)
Similar Judgements	5.14 (1.75)	4.40 (2.04)	4.68 (1.68)
Comparative Pessimism	5.05 (1.74)	4.80 (1.72)	4.82 (1.73)

Extent to which participants believed that other drivers would be influenced by the message

Consistent with the findings above, a main effect of campaign type emerged (F(2, 382) = 5.64, p = .004), indicating that the injury campaign was thought to have a greater influence on other drivers compared to the sanction (p = .024) and humor campaigns (p = .004), exhibiting small magnitude effects (d = .19 and .24, respectively). No significant interaction (p = .609), or differences among the comparative judgment groups (p = .154), were observed. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 4.

Table 4. Mean perceived influence of each campaign on other driver as a Function of group.

	Injury	Sanction	Humor
	Mean (SD)
Overall Sample	4.82 (1.50)	4.53 (1.61)	4.46 (1.54)
Comparative Optimism	4.59 (1.44)	4.35 (1.72)	4.10 (1.54)
Similar Judgements	4.80 (1.62)	4.56 (1.68)	4.68 (1.52)
Comparative Pessimism	5.00 (1.47)	4.65 (1.49)	4.60 (1.52)

Opinions surrounding what constitutes an effective campaign for mobile phone use while driving

The majority of responses indicated that threat-based appeals and/or informative/sanction-based messages would be most effective in reducing engagement in illegal mobile phone use while driving. Other responses included positive-based appeals (e.g., using strategies to reduce the risks, such as Bluetooth), humor-based appeals, or stories of real-life victims. No major differences were observed between groups, with all three groups suggesting that threat-based and informative messages would be most effective. Examples of responses within each category can be found in Table A2, supplementary material.

Discussion

This exploratory study investigated whether comparative judgements affect the perceived relevance of mobile phone road safety campaigns. First, it was found that the injury-based campaign was perceived to be significantly more relevant than the humor-based campaign, albeit exhibiting a small magnitude effect. Further, whilst the relevance of each campaign did not vary as a function of group, the campaigns were found to be less relevant to those displaying comparative optimism compared to those with comparative pessimism and similar judgements. Finally, the injury campaign was perceived to be significantly more influential than the humor-based and sanction campaigns. However, overall, participants displaying comparative optimism believed that they were significantly less likely to be influenced by the message compared to those displaying comparative pessimism. Taken together, these findings suggest that judgements of risk should be considered in the design of road safety campaigns, and specifically suggest that low perceptions of risk may dilute or extinguish desired behavioral outcomes of road safety campaigns. Nonetheless, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness (as opposed to the perceived saliency and influence) of such campaigns in reducing actual engagement in mobile phone use while driving amongst these groups.

Contrary to research suggesting that injury-based campaigns may not be effective in deterring risky driving behavior or promoting behavior change (e.g., Carey et al. 2013; Lewis et al. 2007b), this study suggests that injury-based messages may be perceived as more impactful and salient compared to humor or sanction-based campaigns. However, it is important to emphasize that these differences exhibited small magnitude effects, and hence may not represent a meaningful change. Certainly, the present data were also based on perceived estimates and thus may not be indicative of actual behavior. Interestingly, in the present study, the campaigns were considered less relevant to those displaying comparative optimism compared to those with comparative pessimism and similar judgements. These findings align with research indicating the extent to which an individual believes they/others are likely to be influenced by a message will affect behavioral intentions (e.g., Lewis et al. 2007a). Such findings might suggest that (a) misperceptions surrounding one’s crash risk might lead to certain individuals being indifferent to various types of stimuli and/or (b) judgements of risk influence the interpretation of stimuli. The finding that the comparative optimism group believed they were less likely to be influenced by the message compared to the comparative pessimism group, lends further support to this argument. Specifically, the findings suggest that individuals with low perceptions of risk are less likely to find campaigns personally relevant, and thus may be less likely to change their behavior following exposure to such campaigns.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the present data are based on the perceived estimates, as opposed to objective assessments of behavior. Indeed, further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of such campaigns in influencing subsequent behavior on the road. On a similar note, participants were not exposed to the campaigns in a controlled environment and thus whether participants fully attended to the campaigns cannot be confirmed. We also acknowledge that the campaigns differed on several dimensions. For example, in the injury campaign the mobile phone law had been violated, whereas during the humor campaign, the passenger prevented the driver from committing the offense. Finally, it is important to note that discrepancies were observed regarding perceptions of general crash risk versus crash risk whilst using a mobile phone. Specifically, a greater proportion of participants were optimistic or neutral regarding their crash risk, whereas a greater number of participants were pessimistic about their crash risk when using a mobile phone. These findings may suggest that a greater proportion of participants were cognizant of the risks involved with using a mobile phone while driving and its impact on driver performance.

Implications

Nonetheless, the present findings support the proposal that tailored messaging approaches (as opposed to “one size fits all”) may be required in order to counteract comparative optimism tendencies when attempting to educate/deter motorists from engaging in rule violations through messaging campaigns. Specifically, the present findings highlight the need to develop messaging approaches that take into account individual differences (particularly perceptions of risk) and are tailored specifically to the population of interest. For example, in the case of comparative optimism, it is unlikely that a typical messaging approach (e.g., fear-based) will be effective in reducing mobile phone use while driving if the message (and risks of offending) is not perceived as personally relevant. Rather, effective messaging may require a multi-component approach that: (i) reinforces the risks are elevated for the target group before (ii) highlighting the associated costs (e.g., injury and sanctions) associated with the offending behavior (e.g., mobile phone use while driving). While the complexity of this challenge is further illuminated by recent research that indicates some motorists continue to offend despite being cognizant of the risks (Mills et al. 2021), identifying effective approaches should remain paramount given the social and economic costs associated with crashes caused by distracted driving.

Conclusion

The findings from this study offer important insights into how perceptions of risk and comparative biases might influence campaign effectiveness, and highlight important avenues for future research. For example, given that the present findings suggest that comparative optimism may dilute or extinguish desired outcomes from mobile phone road safety campaigns, future research is needed to determine (a) factors that might counteract such effects and (b) what constitutes a relevant campaign for this subgroup of the population. Further, based on the qualitative responses, it is clear that a range of messaging campaigns may be necessary to appeal to the public.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the Motor Accident Insurance Commission.