Have you read the message that even a two-second glance at your phone means you’re driving blind? Or heard the slogan, “When you’re on your phone, you’re driving blind”?
These road safety campaigns illustrate how the delivery of information, often stylised using emotive and fear-based messaging and content, highlights and heightens perceptions of risks and harm associated with dangerous driving behaviours.
It’s believed that, alongside formal deterrence mechanisms such as police enforcement and fines, articulating the anti-social or reckless nature of specific behaviours can transform the attitudes, values, and norms of road users.
Our initial study on smartphone use while driving was the first to measure the effects of these formal (law and enforcement) and informal (social and emotive) mechanisms on deterring drivers from illegally engaging with their smartphones.
Read more: Nomophobia and the illegal use of mobile phones on Australian roads
We found only informal mechanisms – that is, the fear of hurting oneself or others, the guilt associated with illegal use, and the fear of peer disapproval – predicted the likelihood a driver had engaged in illegal use over the past month.
Although roadside advertising and television campaigns get the information out there, messaging should explore beyond a “one size fits all” approach.
More specifically, with each increase in agreement with the statement, “I would feel guilty after using a mobile phone while driving even if I was not caught by the police”, drivers were 24.2% less likely to have reported breaking the law.
Additionally, each increase in agreement with the threat of physical loss (that is, “If I used a mobile phone while driving, I would worry I might get hurt or hurt others”), the likelihood of illegal use decreased by 15.3%.
Although these findings were interesting in and of themselves, guilt and fear are complex emotions, intertwined with one’s social and cultural environment, neurology, past behaviours, and knowledge and perceptions of potential harms and risks. Although roadside advertising and television campaigns get the information out there, messaging should explore beyond a “one size fits all” approach.
Therefore, using the same sample, we conducted a second study to determine if perceptions of information highlighting different risks and harms of illegal use was associated with drivers reporting different levels of guilt or fear of crashing. Gathering this data may provide justification for campaigns to explore the potential of targeted and tailored road safety messaging as part of their multi-pronged approach to increasing road safety.
Using information presented in past campaigns (for example, “A two-second glance at your phone while driving at 50km/h effectively means driving blind for 27 metres”) and four other risks and harms informed by peer-reviewed research (“Contributes to traffic congestion”, “Contributes to 16% of Victorian road deaths and serious injuries annually”), we asked only drivers that admitted to breaking smartphone laws how effective they believed the risks/consequences were in deterring their future use.
The study revealed that 67.3% of male drivers and 73.3% of female drivers were unaware of the impact illegal smartphone use has on serious injury and death among road users. (In comparison, 35% of men and 52.9% of women were unfamiliar with the “Driving Blind” information).
The toll of illegal smartphone use should be made common knowledge through targeted and tailored messaging.
When comparing these results, and their impacts on perceptions on informal mechanisms (that is, guilt, fear of physical loss), we found differences that could be attributed to age, gender, and frequency of illegal use while driving. These findings support our contention that road safety information should be tailored and targeted.
Drivers also rated this information as the most effective at deterring their illegal use, although the novelty of this information should be considered. Additionally, the effectiveness of this information was associated with drivers admitting higher levels of guilt and fear of hurting themselves.
Given our previous study showed that, of the informal mechanisms, drivers were mostly concerned about their illegal use hurting other road users, the toll of illegal smartphone use should be made common knowledge through targeted and tailored messaging.
Our findings also revealed that the more frequently drivers engaged with their device illegally, the less likely they were to feel guilty, fear peer disapproval or hurting themselves and others, suggesting that with time the behaviour becomes normalised.
Drink, drug driving, and mobile phone use – how they compare
Interestingly, the second-most-effective piece of information was that comparing the performance decrements of illegal smartphone use with alcohol/cannabis impaired driving.
More than half (50.4%) of female drivers, and 39.9% of male drivers stated that they were unfamiliar with this risk. Additionally, the effectiveness of this comparison was associated with increased levels of fear of peer disapproval and hurting others. For many road users, then, drawing this comparison could produce relevant and effective responses.
Check out @Fa_Fa_Fa_Fa_Fa_'s latest manuscript which explores potential factors that can deter illegal smartphone use while driving:https://t.co/ohl8U14UFo@MUARCresearch #roadsafety
— A/Prof Sjaan Koppel (she/her) (@SjaanKoppel) February 17, 2022
Associating illegal smartphone use with drink-driving is a novel approach. Decades of campaigns, education, advertising and community activity, alongside formal measures such as increased punishments, behaviour change programs, Roadside Breath Testing, and alcohol interlocks, have contributed to low social tolerance to the behaviour. As such, drink-driving is stigmatised and shrouded in social disapproval.
The two behaviours, however, are motivated by fundamentally different attitudes, values, and norms. To change public sentiment and behaviour, advertising should acknowledge the complex social and cultural factors impacting use – simply blaming the driver omits their social reality, where obligations to employers, commitments to family, and the need to remain connected or gain information may motivate what they perceive as “benign” use.
In an age where social and digital media allows the delivery of relevant and representative messaging to specific audiences, using billboards, television, or other general media to deliver road safety campaigns is no longer the most efficient or effective method. Targeting the right message to the right individual or group will have the greatest impact.
