IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13241-d691290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Targeting Smartphone Use While Driving: Drivers’ Reactions to Different Types of Safety Messages

Author

Listed:
  • Laura Šeibokaitė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Rasa Markšaitytė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Auksė Endriulaitienė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Justina Slavinskienė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Dainora Šakinytė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

  • Gerda Tamajevaitė

    (Psychology Department, Vytautas Magnus University, 44248 Kaunas, Lithuania)

Abstract

Only a few previous studies analyzed the effectiveness of road safety messages targeting smartphone use while driving and only several of them used messages from an ongoing road safety campaign. Thus, contributing to the field, this study aimed at testing the effectiveness of two types of social messages (threat appeal and threat appeal together with safe behavior role modelling) targeting smartphone use while driving. Ninety-three drivers were randomly assigned to two experimental ( n 1 = 26; n 2 = 37) and one control ( n = 29) groups. Each experimental group was presented with one 30 s length video message to reduce or stop smartphone use while driving. Messages differed in terms of threat appeal and modelling of safe behavior. The control group was presented with a 30 s length video clip showing neutral driving related content. The results revealed that threat appeals (alone or together with a safe role model) resulted in less positive emotions when compared to the control group’s reported emotional reactions. The message with threat appeal only also resulted in more negative emotions compared to the control group. With regards to behavioral intentions, road safety messages used in this study had minor effectiveness: the threat appeal message reduced the intentions to use smartphones while driving, only when previous behavior has been controlled. In sum, messages targeting smartphone use while driving were effective at least to some extent in changing drivers’ emotions and intentions not to be involved in targeted behavior, but the effect was minor and threat appeal only showed higher effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Šeibokaitė & Rasa Markšaitytė & Auksė Endriulaitienė & Justina Slavinskienė & Dainora Šakinytė & Gerda Tamajevaitė, 2021. "Targeting Smartphone Use While Driving: Drivers’ Reactions to Different Types of Safety Messages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13241-:d:691290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13241/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13241/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. Yusuke Hayashi & Anne M Foreman & Jonathan E Friedel & Oliver Wirth, 2019. "Threat appeals reduce impulsive decision making associated with texting while driving: A behavioral economic approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Rachel N Carey & Daragh T McDermott & Kiran M Sarma, 2013. "The Impact of Threat Appeals on Fear Arousal and Driver Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research 1990–2011," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-8, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    2. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    3. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    4. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    5. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    7. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    8. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    9. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    10. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    11. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    13. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    14. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    15. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    17. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    18. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.
    19. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    20. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13241-:d:691290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.