Support for legislative, technological, and organizational strategies to reduce cellphone use while driving: Psychological predictors and influences of language

Abstract

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.

Are some narratives better than others?: The impact of different narrative forms on adolescents’ intentions to text and drive

“…There is a growing concern that safe driving messages may trigger psychological reactance (Kim, 2018; Kim & Wang, 2020; Shoots‐Reinhard et al., 2021). Consistent with this idea, Ward and colleagues (2021) found that forceful traffic safety messages generated increased reactance.…”

Barriers to Enforcing Laws and Support for Restricting Cell Phone Use While Driving among Law Enforcement Officers

“…Our main outcome variable was support for enforcement of restrictions on CUWD. We selected enforcement policies based on previous research investigating support for enforcement of restrictions on CUWD among drivers ( 9 ) and taking into account penalties for traffic crimes (e.g., fines, points) that could hypothetically be applied to distracted driving. Participants indicated support for six potential enforcement policies for reducing the prevalence of CUWD, including primary and secondary enforcement of restrictions to reduce distracted driving.…”

“…As in previous research ( 9 ), participants estimated the prevalence of CUWD in Ohio using a sliding scale from “0% or (never)” to “100% (every trip).” They gave estimates for four driving situations: “While the car is in motion”; “At a stop sign or stoplight”; “On residential streets”; and “On highways.” These items were averaged to form an index of perceived prevalence.…”

“…It causes poorer reaction times, hazard detection, lane control, and speed maintenance and, ultimately, greater crash risk ( 3 – 6 ). The public appear aware of the dangers of CUWD and support laws restricting it ( 7 – 9 ).…”

“…The intention was to evaluate their perceived risk of dangerous driving behaviors, and to estimate their perceived prevalence of distracted driving. We reasoned that these two factors would be important predictors of support for stronger enforcement, because they parallel the severity and susceptibility that predict behaviors and support for enforcement among drivers ( 9 , 22 ).…”