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

Figures & data

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

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)

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)

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)