Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Public education messages aimed at smartphone use among

young drivers: A mixed methods exploration of their
effectiveness
Cassandra S. Gauld a,d,⇑, Ioni M. Lewis a,d, Katherine M. White b,d, Judy J. Fleiter b,c,
Barry Watson a,d
a
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia
b
School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia
c
Global Road Safety Partnership, International Fédération of Red Cross & Red Crescent Sociétés, Route de Pré-Bois 1, CH-1214, Vernier, Switzerland
d
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Ave, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The main aim of this study was to concept test nine public education messages; with three
Received 30 June 2018 different messages targeting each of three salient underlying beliefs in accordance with the
Received in revised form 20 September Step Approach to Message Design and Testing (SatMDT) framework. The underlying beliefs
2018
were: (1) believing you are a good driver would encourage a young driver to monitor/read
Accepted 25 October 2018
Available online 9 November 2018
and respond to social interactive technology while driving; (2) slow-moving traffic would
encourage a young driver to monitor/read and respond to social interactive technology
while driving; and, (3) friends and peers would approve of a young driver monitoring/read-
Keywords:
Concept testing
ing and responding to communications on their smartphone. Consistent with the SatMDT,
Smartphone the testing aimed to establish which three messages (each targeting a different underlying
Social interactive technology belief) young drivers reported as being the most effective. A mixed methods approach was
Public education messages utilised to provide an in-depth examination of individuals’ thoughts and feelings about the
Young drivers messages, with such responses assessed via an individual self-report survey and focus
Step approach to Message Design and group discussions/interviews. Participants (N = 33; 19F, 14 M) were aged 17–25 years,
Testing (SatMDT) had a current driver’s licence, owned a smartphone, and resided in the Australian state
of Queensland. Means for each of the survey items were compared across message con-
cepts to determine which ones were rated highest. Focus group discussion/interview
responses underwent a data-led thematic analysis. The results of the quantitative and qual-
itative analyses were integrated to identify three messages that were deemed the most
effective, one for each of the three underlying beliefs. Each of these three messages elicited
positive emotion and modelled positive behaviour. This research highlights the importance
of concept testing message content with the target audience. The results support current
research that suggests road safety messages modelling positive behaviour and eliciting
positive emotions may be especially persuasive for young drivers.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author at: Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove,
Queensland 4059, Australia.
E-mail address: c1.gauld@qut.edu.au (C.S. Gauld).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.10.027
1369-8478/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
312 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

1. Introduction

1.1. Young drivers

Worldwide, road trauma is the leading cause of death among young people aged 15–29 years (WHO, 2015). In Australia,
young drivers aged 17 to 25 years constitute just 12.4% of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015) yet are rep-
resented in over 20% of road crash fatalities (Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, 2014). Smartphones
are most popular among 18 to 29 year olds (Rainie, 2012) and young drivers are more likely than other age groups to access
the additional capabilities and computer functions, such as Facebook and email while driving (AAMI, 2012, 2015). Young dri-
vers, therefore, are at increased risk of road trauma from smartphone use.

1.2. Monitoring/reading and responding to social interactive technology

Social interactive technology refers to smartphone functions that allow the user to communicate with other people via,
for example, social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), emails, and also texting and calling. Recent research has inves-
tigated discrete behaviours associated with mobile phone use, such as reading and responding to communications, as these
behaviours have different rates of prevalence, and have been associated with different underlying motivations and risk per-
ceptions (e.g., Atchley, Atwood, & Boulton, 2011; Shi, Xiao, & Atchley, 2016; Waddell & Wiener, 2014). Young drivers, for
example, perceive that replying to text messages is riskier than reading text messages (Shi et al., 2016). This perception
may be encouraging young drivers to read communications more often than respond to them (Gauld et al., 2016); however,
recent research has shown that simply hearing a notification on one’s phone can significantly disrupt performance on an
attention-demanding task (Stothart, Mitchum, & Yehnert, 2015). It is possible, therefore, that reading a communication
while driving may not be as safe as young drivers perceive it to be. Although these aforementioned studies were limited
to calling and texting behaviours, the differences in motivation, prevalence, and risk perception may also apply to other
social interactive technologies.

1.3. Public education messages

The main aim of public education messages in road safety is to encourage safer road user behaviours (Elliott, 1993; Lewis,
Watson, & White, 2009; Watson, 1996). Given the substantial difficulties police face with the enforcement of mobile phone
use while driving (e.g., Goodwin, O’Brien, & Foss, 2012; Jessop, 2008; McCartt, Hellinga, Strouse, & Farmer, 2010), the devel-
opment of effective theory-based public education messages, as part of a comprehensive strategy, is critical.

1.3.1. The step approach to message design and testing (SatMDT)

The Step approach to Message Design and Testing ([SatMDT], Lewis et al., 2009; Lewis, Watson, & White, 2016) frame-
work was devised to guide the development and evaluation of road safety public education messages. The framework is
based on social psychological theories of decision making and attitude-behaviour relations and behaviour change including
the Theory of Planned Behaviour ([TPB] Ajzen, 1991), the Extended Parallel Processing Model ([EPPM] Witte, 1992), the Elab-
oration Likelihood Model ([ELM] Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), and Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1969). The four main steps of
the framework are: (1) identification of pre-existing individual characteristics; (2) development of message-related charac-
teristics; (3) individual responses; and (4) evaluation of message outcomes (Lewis et al., 2009; Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016)
(see Fig. 1).
The current study applied Step 3 of the framework. The aim of this step is to assess individuals’ responses (both emotional
and cognitive) to message content in order to determine whether the messages are operating as intended by the message
developers (i.e., concept test the messages). Formal manipulation checks of message content have not always been con-
ducted in past research; rather, researchers have relied on a priori assumptions regarding a message’s content and the
assumption that the desired effect will be achieved (Dillard, Plotnick, Godbold, Freimuth, & Edgar, 1996; Eveland and
McLeod 1999; LaTour & Rotfeld, 1997; Lewis et al., 2009; Phillips, Ulleberg, & Vaa, 2011; Plant, Reza, & Irwin, 2011). This
lack of checking may be problematic because, for example, if the emotions are not checked, the degree of message persua-
siveness may be attributed to an assumed emotion rather than the actual emotion/s that is elicited (Lewis et al., 2009). A key
feature of this step is to conduct manipulation checks of the anticipated emotional response to the message.
In accordance with the methods and materials designed to apply the SatMDT (Lewis, White, Watson, & Elliott, 2017), the
concept testing phase comprises a mixed methods approach to ensure an in depth and comprehensive examination of par-
ticipants’ thoughts and feelings about the content of each message. Immediately after being presented with each message
concept, and prior to the focus group discussion taking place, participants are invited to complete a short survey regarding
their immediate response to the concept. Survey questions include, for example, the degree of perceived persuasiveness of
the concept for themselves and others, and the emotional response to the concept. The subsequent focus group discussion
will then allow the participants to deliberate on various aspects of the messages in more detail. An important part of concept
testing involves refinement of message content in response to the participants’ feedback (Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016).
 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326 313

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

Methodology Step 4 - Quantitative-based assessment of persuasive

Pre-existing individual Message-related Individual responses Message outcomes
characteristics characteristics

Methodology Step 3- Concept testing & message checks

Identify Elicit Focus & Content Emotional & Cognitive Acceptance &

Methodology Step 2- Message exposure

Rejection

Methodology Step 1 -Pilot work

Focus of Message

Gender/ age Salient Challenge perceived benefits Emotional responses Intentions to

Persuasive effects measured over time

beliefs (anticipated emotion adopt

effects
and/or elicited?) message
+ and/or denial,
+ Highlight perceived +
Strategies for disadvantages defensive
avoiding Cognitive responses avoidance
behaviour Key content reactions
Extent & (e.g., perceptions of
nature of (response *Emotional appeal type
efficacy) response efficacy,
involvement (e.g., fear-based, humour- involvement)
in/with based)
behaviour
*Modelling of behaviour
*Strategies

Fig. 1. The SatMDT (Lewis et al., 2009; Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016).

The messages to undergo concept testing in the current study were previously developed in accordance with Step 2 of the
SatMDT. Specifically, when designing the messages, consideration was given to various factors that have been shown to
enhance message effectiveness. The inclusion of contextual features in message scenarios that are relevant to young drivers,
such as using a phone while stopped at traffic lights, have been shown to enhance message effectiveness (Lewis et al., 2012).
Both positive (i.e., the driver does not use their smartphone) and negative (i.e., the driver does use their smartphone) mod-
elling of behaviour have the potential to encourage enactment of the desired behaviour (Bandura, 1969; Lewis, Watson,
White, & Tay, 2007). While threat appeals that elicit fear have traditionally been the most common form of road safety public
education message in Australia, research suggests that young people, particularly young males, may respond better to mes-
sages that elicit positive emotions (Lewis, Watson, & White, 2008; Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007). The inclusion of strate-
gies that are likely to elicit a high level of response efficacy (i.e., the belief of the target audience that strategies
recommended in the message to avoid engaging in the target behaviour will be successful in avoiding a negative conse-
quence [Witte, 1992]) has been directly related to message effectiveness (e.g., Lewis, Watson, & White, 2010, 2013;
Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007; Tay & Watson, 2002; Witte, 1992).

1.4. The current study

The current mixed methods study applied Step 3 of the SatMDT (Lewis et al., 2009; Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016) and inves-
tigated which of nine public education messages aimed at monitoring/reading and responding to social interactive technol-
ogy on smartphones were reported as being the most persuasive by members of the target audience; namely, young drivers
aged 17–25 years. Specifically, the messages each targeted one of three salient beliefs identified previously (Authors, 2016).
These beliefs were: (1) believing you are a good driver would encourage a young driver monitor/read or respond to social
interactive technology on their smartphone; (2) slow-moving traffic would encourage a young driver monitor/read or
respond to social interactive technology on their smartphone; and, (3) friends and peers would approve of a young driver
monitoring/reading or responding to communications on their smartphone. The current study, therefore, aimed to identify
the three most effective message concepts, each targeting a different underlying belief.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants (N = 33; 19F, 14 M) were aged 17–25 years (M = 19 years, SD = 1.99), had a current driver’s licence (provi-
sional: n = 23; open: n = 9; international: n = 1), owned a smartphone, and resided in the Australian state of Queensland.
Most participants (n = 29) were first year psychology students who took part for partial course credit. The remaining partic-
ipants (n = 4) were recruited via university email lists, university webpages, and the researchers’ family and friends. Partic-
ipants who were not eligible for course credit were offered a coffee voucher to thank them for their time.
314 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Public education messages

As previously outlined in the introduction, the messages presented in this study had been developed in accordance with
Step 2 of the SatMDT framework and included key message-related features that have been shown to improve message
effectiveness (see Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016). Table 1 outlines the key features and brief descriptions of each public educa-
tion message. Nine messages had been developed each containing different combinations of these key features.

2.2.2. Brief survey

The brief survey was adapted from previous studies which had applied the SatMDT (e.g., Lewis, Ho, & Lennon, 2016; see
also Lewis et al. 2017) and examined participants’ perceptions of each message’s effectiveness as well as their emotional and
cognitive responses to the messages. All responses were measured on 5-point Likert scales (except for two general questions
about positive and negative emotional responses that were measured on 7-point Likert scales). Participants were firstly
asked about their reaction to the message content in regards to 13 discrete emotions (e.g., ‘Please indicate on the scale pro-
vided, the extent that the ad made you feel (e.g., fearful, amused; 1 [strongly disagree] to 5 [strongly agree]’). Five items then
assessed how effective they perceived the message to be (e.g., ‘How persuasive do you think the message was?’ ‘How believ-
able do you think the message was?’ ‘How relevant is the message to you personally?’). The survey also asked about the
strategies included in the message (e.g., ‘How likely are you to adopt the strategies recommended in the message?’).

2.2.3. Focus group/interview question schedule

The semi-structured interview schedule, developed by Lewis, Watson, et al. (2016), was adapted for use in the current
study. Questions included participants’ initial reaction to the message, whether it challenged their beliefs, what strategies
the message provided to help young drivers to stop using social interactive technology, and how realistic and believable
it was perceived to be. The interview schedule also asked participants if they believed the message could be easily adapted
to the other behaviour (e.g., if the message targeted monitoring/reading, could it be easily adapted to responding?). At the
end of each focus group (or interview), and consistent with the study’s aim to identify the three most persuasive messages,
participants were asked to identify the top three messages that they perceived to be the most effective, including which mes-
sage was their favourite.

2.3. Procedure

There were 10 focus group discussions in total, each comprising 2 to 4 participants, and seven individual interviews (see
Table 2 for a summary of participant groups). Consent was obtained verbally. Each of the nine messages was presented to
young drivers as a written outline. The participants were told that the messages were in the early stages of development;
however, it was intended that they would be developed into video format in the future (e.g., an audio-visual message
intended for YouTube or television). The first of the nine messages was presented to each participant to read silently to
themselves. Participants then answered the brief survey questions individually so there was no influence from other group
members on their immediate responses (Lewis, Watson, et al., 2016). The focus group discussion or interview then took place
to ensure the messages’ emotional and cognitive content was being conveyed to the participants as intended. The discussion
was allowed to flow naturally; however, if some of the questions on the interview schedule remained unanswered near the
end of the discussion, participants were asked these questions directly. This process was then repeated for each of the
remaining messages. The messages were presented to the participants in the same order, which had been randomly prede-
termined. The interviews and focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by the first author to
ensure maximum familiarity with the text.

2.4. Data analysis

In the initial analysis, the quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately. For the quantitative component,
means for each of the survey items were compared across message concepts to determine which ones were rated highest
on each of the emotion and effectiveness items. As the sample size was small for a quantitative analysis, these results were
analysed descriptively only. For the qualitative component, responses underwent a data-led thematic analysis (Howitt &
Cramer, 2014) to determine which public education messages were deemed the most effective and why. Specifically, the
analysis involved coding the data and then developing overarching themes from the coding. The other authors reviewed
the findings and regularly provided feedback. The findings for each message were compared with and contrasted to the find-
ings across the other messages. In the final stage of the analysis, and consistent with best practise in mixed methods research
(see Creswell, Klassen, Plano Clark, & Smith, 2011), the qualitative and quantitative data were integrated to determine which
of the messages were deemed the most effective. Please note that, in response to the ongoing feedback obtained in this
study, messages that were consistently deemed ineffective were removed during the course of the focus group discussions
and not included in the subsequent analysis (i.e., Message 1 ‘Red Arrows’ and Message 3 ‘Roll Back’).
Table 1
Brief descriptions and key features of each public education message.

Message name Brief description Underlying belief Modelling Anticipated Strategies Contextual
challenged of valence of features
behaviour predominant
affect
1.‘Red Arrows’ A young driver is continually checking their smartphone while making driver errors Believing you are a Negative Negative Pull over. Alone; moving
(e.g., swerving into the next lane, indicates in the wrong direction). Each time the good driver makes Put it in the boot. traffic
young driver makes driving errors, three big red arrows (which are overlaid on the it easier Put it on silent.
visual) point at the car and flash. When the young driver brakes suddenly at a stop
light, they look up and cringe when they see the other drivers looking over angrily.
Voice over: So you think you can check yours smartphone and others won’t know? Don’t
kid yourself – it’s like driving with big red arrows pointing at you.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Even good drivers become bad drivers
when they are distracted.

C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

2. ‘Help your Three friends (one young driver, and 2 friends) are driving in a suburban area and Friends/peers Negative Positive Passenger using Two
Friends’ chatting about the party they went to last night. The driver picks up their phone to would approve young driver’s passengers;
check a notification to which the driver tries to respond. The friends tell the driver that phone for them. suburb; moving
they feel afraid when the driver uses their phone and one friend offers to respond for freely
the driver, to which the driver agrees.
Tagline: Look out for your mates. Don’t let them drive distracted.
3. ‘Rollback’ A young driver is stuck in a traffic jam caused by roadworks. The driver checks their Slow-moving Negative Negative Pull over. Alone;
smartphone and the car slowly rolls backwards into the car behind. The driver is traffic makes it Put it in the boot. slow moving
embarrassed when they realise what has happened. easier Put it on silent. traffic
Voice over: You might think it is OK to check your smartphone in a traffic jam - but it’s
not.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Stay alert in all traffic situations.
4. ‘Good driver’ A young driver waves goodbye to their Dad as they leave for university. The Dad waves Believing you are a Positive Positive Pull over. Alone; suburb
back and shouts out ‘drive safely’ to which the young driver replies ‘Yeah, yeah, dad, I good driver makes Put it in the boot.
am a good driver you know’. As the young driver leaves a notification ‘ding’ is heard on it easier Put it on silent.
their smartphone. The driver reaches over to check it but hesitates as they remember
that they told their Dad they were a good driver. A dog runs in front of the car and the
car stops safely.
Voiceover: Be the good driver you say you are.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Good drivers don’t check their
smartphone while behind the wheel.
5. ‘Dating’ Two male friends are driving to the beach. The driver reads a communication from Friends/peers Positive & Positive & Pull over. One passenger;
‘Sarah’ who is checking where the party is next weekend. The driver starts responding would approve Negative Negative Put it in the boot. freely moving
while the car is in motion and swerves onto the other side of the road. The passenger Put it on silent. traffic
looks nervous and reminds the driver that he may need to take Sarah to the party on
his skateboard if he is no longer able to drive a car.
Voiceover: Listen to your friends when they say it can wait. Don’t drive distracted.
Tagline Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. No regrets. #YOLO
6. ‘Traffic Lights’ A young driver pulls up at traffic lights, first in the queue. As they are checking their Slow-moving Negative Negative Pull over. Alone; stopped
smartphone they fail to notice when the traffic lights change to green. Several car traffic makes it Put it in the boot. at traffic lights
horns are heard and frustrated drivers are yelling at the young driver who then floors easier Put it on silent.
the car and, in the commotion, loses their smartphone out the window. A police officer
picks up the smartphone from the middle of the road and the young driver looks
worried as the police officer approaches.

(continued on next page)

315
 316
Table 1 (continued)

Message name Brief description Underlying belief Modelling Anticipated Strategies Contextual
challenged of valence of features
behaviour predominant
affect
Voiceover: Think it’s OK to check your smartphone at the traffic lights? It’s not. You are
still driving even when the light is red.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. You haven’t stopped driving just
because you have stopped at traffic lights.
7. ‘Animated Cars’ Two animated (cartoon-style) cars are being driven by young drivers. The driver of Car Believing you are a Negative Negative Pull over. Alone; moving
1 is intermittently using their smartphone while driving and making driving errors good driver makes Put it in the boot. traffic
(e.g., swerving into the next lane, almost hitting a pedestrian when they step onto a it easier Put it on silent.
crossing). The two cars are having a ‘conversation’ (via thought bubbles) about how
bad the driver of Car 1 becomes when they are using their smartphone and how this
behaviour has resulted in the cars getting damaged.

C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

Voiceover: Thinking you’re a good driver does not mean you can safely check your
smartphone.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Even good drivers become bad drivers
when they are distracted.
8. ‘Animated A young driver is in a slow-moving traffic jam when a ‘ding’ is heard. They reach over Slow-moving Positive Positive Pull over. Alone;
Smartphone’ to the back seat to retrieve their smartphone and check the notification. An animated traffic makes it Put it in the boot. slow moving
smartphone is shown crawling away from the driver’s hand and hiding under the easier Put it on silent. traffic
driver’s jacket which is also on the back seat. When a pedestrian suddenly runs out in
front of the car, it stops in plenty of time. A tired smartphone peeps out from under the
jacket and appears relieved.
Voiceover: Think it’s OK to answer your smartphone in a traffic jam? It’s not. There are
unexpected dangers in slow-moving traffic.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Stay alert, and away from your
smartphone, in all traffic situations.
9. ‘Voice your A young driver is alone in their car in a suburban area on their way to a friend’s place. Friends/peers Positive Positive Pull over. Alone; suburb;
Opinion’ The driver ignores two notifications. When they arrive at their friend’s place two of the would approve Put it in the boot. moving freely
friends ask if the driver received their communications to which the driver replies that Put it on silent.
they were driving. The two friends who had sent messages can’t believe the driver
didn’t respond. The three other friends support the driver by describing various
negative consequences of such action (e.g., crashing, demerit points). The driver
checks their phone and is surprised at how trivial the message actually is (i.e., picking
up pizza on the way over).
Voiceover: Keep it real. If you don’t like your friends < checking/answering > their
smartphone while driving, tell them so.
Tagline: Pull over. Put it in the boot. Put it on silent. Voice your opinion – let your friends
know what you really think.

Note: the anticipated valence of the predominant affect was categorised by the researchers.
 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326 317

Table 2
Summary of participant groups.

Group number Group type Number of participants Participant age and gender
1 Interview 1 19M
2 Focus group discussion 2 20F, 17F
3 Focus group discussion 2 22F, 18F
4 Focus group discussion 3 18F, 18F, 17F
5 Focus group discussion 3 22F, 19F, 18F
6 Interview 1 18F
7 Focus group discussion 3 18F, 18F, 18F
8 Focus group discussion 3 18M, 21F, 18F
9 Focus group discussion 2 17M, 17F
10 Interview 1 19M
11 Focus group discussion 2 18F, 18F
12 Interview 1 20M
13 Interview 1 19M
14 Focus group discussion 2 20M, 25M
15 Interview 1 20M
16 Interview 1 19M
17 Focus group discussion 4 18M, 19M, 19M, 25M

Note: In the final column of this table, ‘M/F’ denotes gender and the number denotes age. For examples, ‘19M’ means a 19-year-old male.

3. Results and discussion

Results for each of the remaining seven message concepts (i.e., messages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) are found in Tables 3–5.
Specifically, the emotional response to each of the message concepts, and the means and standard deviations for each item
are presented in Table 3. Encouragingly, this emotion check found that for five of the seven message concepts (i.e., messages
4, 6, 7, 8, and 9), the valence of the predominant affect was as anticipated (and as outlined in Table 1). As previously stated, it
is important to check the individuals’ emotional responses; otherwise, the degree of message persuasiveness may be attrib-
uted to an anticipated emotion rather than the actual emotion elicited (Lewis et al., 2009). The perceived effectiveness of
each message concept and the means and standard deviations for each item are presented in Table 4. The perceived effec-
tiveness is an important construct as it has been shown to be a causal antecedent of actual effectiveness (Dillard, Shen, & Vail,
2007). Results of the thematic analysis and supporting quotes for each of the remaining seven message concepts that were
tested on all the participants are presented in Table 5. Included in this table is the number of times each message was
reported to be in a participant’s top three messages, including how many times it was cited as the favourite.
The type of social interactive technology represented in the messages was checked with participants to ensure the desired
range of technology was being depicted. As anticipated, the ‘communications’ and ‘notifications’ referred to in the messages
were commonly believed to represent any of a number of forms of social interactive technology. Participants believed, how-
ever, that they were most likely to represent a text message, a phone call, a Facebook message or comment notification, or an
email. These forms of social interactive technology are also the most commonly reported forms accessed while driving
(Gauld, Lewis, White, Fleiter, & Watson, 2017).
Overall, participants consistently deemed the strategy ‘put it in the boot1’, that appeared in the tagline of all messages
(except Message 2), as not practical. Specifically, participants did not believe that young drivers would be likely to use that strat-
egy because their phone would not be available should an emergency arise. As such, at the conclusion of this study, it was
replaced with the strategy ‘put it right out of sight’.

3.1. Message 2 (‘Help your Friends’)

Overall, this message concept was perceived as effective. Despite anticipating that that the valence of the predominant
emotion when reading this message would be positive, participants reported feeling the most anxious than both any other
emotion and any other message. For example, as reported in the focus groups:
‘It made me feel uneasy ‘cos it is so relatable that this is something that could
happen to us, so if we don’t see the pedestrian while we are texting, we could hit the
pedestrian’ (F21).
This message scored the highest on the three survey measures of relevance, likelihood to adopt strategies, and likelihood
to reduce/stop smartphone use while driving. With regard to relevance, the focus group discussions also reported that this
message was relevant in relation to the context of driving with friends and to the scenario itself. For example:

1
‘Boot’ is the Australian term for ‘trunk’ of a car.
 318
C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for the Emotion Check (for Messages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9) from Survey Data.

Message concept Negative* Positive* Sad Fearful Anxious Annoyed Relaxed Competent Happy Proud Excited Amused Flattered Agitated Relieved
2. ‘Help your 3.94 3.97 2.30 3.03 3.30 2.91 2.38 2.42 2.73 2.36 2.03 2.45 1.94 2.48 2.76
friends’ (1.56) (1.56) (0.98) (1.10) (0.98) (1.18) (1.04) (0.87) (1.07) (1.03) (0.81) (1.00) (0.86) (1.12) (1.25)
4. ‘Good 3.39 4.73 2.24 2.42 2.78 2.25 2.73 2.91 3.18 3.12 2.42 2.61 2.21 2.33 3.79
driver’ (1.30) (1.31) (0.75) (0.83) (0.98) (0.95) (1.07) (0.98) (0.98) (1.02) (0.94) (1.03) (0.93) (0.96) (0.99)
5. ‘Dating’ 3.52 4.00 2.19 2.76 3.06 2.88 2.21 2.42 2.58 2.48 2.39 3.18 2.24 2.82 2.79
(1.28) (1.44) (0.90) (1.12) (1.09) (1.22) (0.93) (0.94) (1.20) (1.06) (1.09) (1.24) (1.06) (1.04) (1.19)
6. ‘Traffic 4.09 3.48 2.34 2.82 3.21 3.42 1.82 2.00 2.09 1.76 2.06 2.73 2.09 3.21 2.21
lights’ (1.44) (1.42) (1.10) (1.13) (0.99) (1.12) (0.77) (0.79) (0.95) (0.75) (1.03) (1.33) (0.93) (0.89) (0.86)
7. ‘Animated 4.09 3.84 2.55 3.27 3.24 3.15 2.06 2.18 2.39 2.06 2.12 3.15 2.24 2.82 2.64
cars’ (1.26) (1.35) (1.00) (1.04) (1.03) (1.15) (0.97) (0.88) (1.14) (0.86) (0.93) (1.12) (0.94) (1.13) (1.17)
8. ‘Animated 3.81 4.34 2.03 2.70 3.09 2.76 2.33 2.21 2.67 2.36 2.27 3.18 2.00 2.52 3.12
smartphone’ (1.09) (1.31) (0.92) (1.16) (1.10) (1.20) (1.14) (0.99) (1.22) (1.03) (1.18) (1.10) (0.83) (1.00) (1.02)
9. ‘Voice your 3.94 4.30 2.39 2.30 2.55 3.12 2.64 2.45 2.76 3.21 2.45 2.94 2.33 2.79 3.00
opinion’ (1.41) (1.43) (1.09) (1.05) (1.06) (1.36) (1.22) (1.09) (1.20) (1.17) (1.18) (1.32) (1.14) (1.22) (1.06)

Note. Messages 1 and 3 received relatively weak feedback and were removed prior to the end of the study.
*
These items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1) strongly disagree, (7) strongly agree. All other items were measured on a 5-point scale, with (5) indicating a more positive response.
 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326 319

Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for the Effectiveness Check (for Messages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9) from Survey Data.

Message concept Persuasiveness Believability Relevance Likelihood of adopting Useful Likelihood of reducing/stopping
strategies strategies SP use while driving
2. ‘Help your friends’ 3.18 (0.73) 3.75 (0.57) 3.48 (0.87) 3.70 (0.85) 3.21 (0.89) 3.28 (0.92)
4. ‘Good driver’ 3.39 (0.61) 3.45 (0.67) 3.27 (0.91) 3.36 (0.74) 3.36 (0.60) 3.27 (0.84)
5. ‘Dating’ 3.03 (0.88) 3.33 (0.82) 2.85 (0.87) 3.15 (0.83) 2.97 (0.85) 2.97 (0.92)
6. ‘Traffic lights’ 3.12 (0.89) 2.69 (1.06) 2.91 (0.84) 2.97 (0.95) 3.03 (0.95) 3.06 (0.97)
7. ‘Animated cars’ 2.88 (0.93) 2.82 (0.81) 2.67 (0.92) 2.85 (0.91) 3.06 (0.75) 3.03 (0.85)
8. ‘Animated smartphone’ 3.12 (0.78) 2.85 (0.83) 2.91 (0.84) 3.03 (0.85) 2.94 (0.66) 3.09 (0.95)
9. ‘Voice your opinion’ 3.55 (0.97) 3.76 (0.94) 3.36 (0.96) 3.42 (0.87) 3.39 (0.75) 3.27 (0.88)

Note. All items were measured on a 5-point scale, with (5) indicating a more positive response. ‘SP’ means smartphone.

‘I could relate to this one, um I think it is something a lot of young people could relate
to as well. It is quite persuasive’ (M19)
Relevance was also discussed in the focus groups in relation to passengers checking and responding to the driver’s smart-
phone for them (i.e., the strategy presented in this message). This finding supports the survey finding regarding this message
being the most likely to reduce/stop smartphone use while driving, possibly because the passenger can do this for them. For
example:
‘I thought it was really relatable, if you have friends in your car and you get a
message they can respond for you if you are the driver’ (F20).
In addition, the survey finding that this message would be the most likely to stop the driver using their smartphone while
driving. This could, in part, be due to the driver’s feelings of responsibility for their passengers and the idea that that driver’s
smartphone is everyone’s responsibility, as discussed in the focus groups. For example:
‘It was kind of like saying that you’ve got other lives in your car so you are not only
responsible for your own’ (M17).
The focus group discussions, however, suggested that the passenger’s fake response on the driver’s smartphone (i.e., pre-
tending to text the driver’s workplace saying that they would rather go to the beach) as described in the message would have
been quite distracting for the driver. In addition, many participants reported that they were already using this strategy and,
therefore, the ability of the message to change young drivers’ behaviour may be limited.

3.2. Message 4 (‘Good Driver’)

This message received positive feedback. It was reported as being in the top three messages for 16 participants and the
favourite for five. As anticipated, this message concept elicited predominantly positive emotions. In comparison to the other
message concepts, participants reported feeling the highest level of relaxation, competence, happiness, and relief. For exam-
ple, as reported in the focus group discussions:
‘‘I like how it is not depressing again. . .good that it shows that he stops in time and all
good because you know what would happen otherwise (F18)
Focus group discussions reported that it was refreshing to have a positive message with a young driver depicted in a
responsible manner (i.e., the young driver modelled positive behaviour by not checking their smartphone), thereby promot-
ing a message of prevention (Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007). For example:
‘I liked the way it was focused in the effects of positive behaviour rather than negative
behaviour’ (F21).
In the survey, this message scored in the top three messages for all the effectiveness checks (e.g., persuasiveness, believ-
ability, relevance). These results were supported in the focus group discussions, for example:
‘Parental factors for me are high driving forces. I just imagine how devastated my
parents would be if I got into a significant accident ‘cos I was being an idiot’ (F17); and,
‘. . .it is persuasive and I think the message has strong content because we are talking
about being responsible’ (M18)
This combination of positive affect and high levels of perceived effectiveness supports current literature that suggests it is
worthwhile broadening the scope of the emotional appeal of messages to include positive appeals (Lewis, Watson, White,
et al., 2007). Previous literature also shows that young drivers believe their parents would disapprove of them using their
smartphone while driving (e.g., Gauld, Lewis, & White, 2014). This finding, combined with participants in the current study
reporting a sense of accountability towards their parents (i.e., behaving like a good driver not just saying they were a good
driver) and wanting their parents to be proud of their actions, appears to have enhanced the effectiveness of this message.
Table 5
Key Themes and Supporting Quotes for the Qualitative Analysis (for Messages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9) of Focus Group Data.
Message concept Themes
2. ‘Help your Friends’ 1. The scene (i.e., driving with friends) is very
common for young drivers
2. Young drivers’ willingness to let their
passengers (friends) use their smartphone
3. The importance of the driver being
accountable to their friends
4. The smartphone is everyone’s responsibility
when in the car
5. The importance of a sensible response from
the passenger using the smartphone
4. ‘Good Driver’ 1. The scene is very believable
2. Refreshing to have a positive message
3. The possibility of hitting the dog represented
a sufficient consequence
4. The importance of wanting your dad to be
proud and of being accountable to what you
say to your dad are motivating
5. ‘Dating’ 1. Good use of humour
2. Message was confused as the driver is also
distracted by the passenger mocking them
320
Supporting quotes No of times in top 3
‘It made me feel uneasy ‘cos it is so relatable that this is something that could happen 12
to us, so if we don’t see the pedestrian while we are texting, we could hit the (3 favourite)
pedestrian’ (F21)
‘I could relate to this one, um I think it is something a lot of young people could relate
to as well. It is quite persuasive’ (M19)
‘I thought it was really relatable, if you have friends in your car and you get a message
they can respond for you if you are the driver’ (F20)
‘Well, I wouldn’t like hand them my smartphone and say like ‘go for gold’ but if I was
driving and like a text message came up I could say ‘oh would you just check that?’
(F18)
‘It was kind of like saying that you’ve got other lives in your car so you are not only
responsible for your own’ (M17)
C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326
‘I thought it was like the message about how it is everyone’s responsibility not just
the driver was good’ (F18)
‘Yeah and he’s also like not focused on driving, he is focused on the friend, so it is
almost a distraction’ (M20)
‘I felt a little bit angry because even though the friends say they want to help the
driver to text back they make a joke and make the driver distracted’ (M18).
‘I know my parents always say to me when I am going out ‘drive safely’ and all the 16
time you just shrug it off; this might make you actually stop and think about it’ (F17) (5 favourite)
‘I was proud of him in the end too; like ‘well done’; at the start I was a bit annoyed
and then at the end when he put it away, saved the dog, that was good (F20)
‘It was different to any of the ads I’ve seen before in road safety’ (F18)
‘I liked the way it was focused on the effects of positive behaviour rather than
negative behaviour’ (F21)
‘‘I like how it is not depressing again. . .good that it shows that he stops in time and all
good because you know what would happen otherwise (F18)
‘..the thought of hitting a dog, absolutely I could not handle that’ (F18)
‘Scene 7 is a good focus on the dog. I think the dog is good as so many people like
dogs’ (M19)
‘Parental factors for me are high driving forces, I just imagine how devastated my
parents would be if I got into a significant accident cos I was being an idiot’ (F17)
‘..it is persuasive and I think the message has strong content because we are talking
about being responsible’ (M18)
‘this one would be remembering the ideal of your parents and how they think you
should be driving (M19)
‘I think it is good that the passenger incorporated humour into his message, um, 6
because it was a lot more effective’ (F18) (2 favourite)
‘. . .when he said ‘on your skateboard’ that really made me laugh’ (M19)
‘I mean the ad should be teaching you to say something like not mocking them and as
soon as you’re mocking them you are even more distracted and something happens
and then you are like. . .when the friend was one of the main causes of the problem’
(F18)
‘. . .and also here where he is looking embarrassed but he is also looking at his friend
which means he isn’t looking at the road. . .’ (M19)
 3. The passenger’s protest about the driver
using their smartphone was too weak (i.e., the
message was not strong enough).
6. ‘Traffic Lights’ 1. Beginning of the scenario is common and
relatable
2. The second half of the scenario is not
believable (from the point where the
smartphone flies out the window)
3. The driver’s embarrassment/humiliation is a
strong consequence
7. ‘Animated Cars’ 1. Animation is eye catching
2. Animation is not age-appropriate (it is too
young)
3. It is not an effective message
4. It is amusing
8. ‘Animated Smartphone’ 1. The smartphone animation made the
message memorable, amusing, and
entertaining
‘It sort of feels a bit half-hearted. . .where I know personally with my friends I’d be
like ‘don’t do that – you’re being an idiot’(F17)
‘..that the mate spoke up. . .it took him a while to speak up which is kind of
like. . .hmmm’
‘I just felt like it half hit the mark’ (F22)
‘It had a really good start like stopped at the traffic lights. . .and then it turns’ (F18) 11
‘I think it is relatable because lots of people get the urge to check their smartphone at (2 favourite)
traffic lights (F20)
‘. . .the smartphone flying out the window was a bit of a stretch. . .’ (M19)
‘the point when he loses the smartphone that kind of lost it cos that tongue in cheek
and it is supposed to be a serious message . . .’ (F17)
‘the situation is relatable but slides out of control when they lost their smartphone
out the window’ (F17)
‘I think this one is bringing out the embarrassment when there is a lot of cars behind
you’ (F18)
‘Yeah, because that screeching is so embarrassing, yeah if I do that I feel like everyone
C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326
knows you were distracted by something, there is no-one else in the car. . .you were
checking your smartphone. . .and when that happens to me it’s like ‘I’m not going to
check my smartphone’ and that lasts for a week, a couple of weeks and seeing it in
the ad form probably would help because any driver who has been driving on their
own for more than 3 months has probably experienced this’ (M19)
‘If drivers yell at me when I am doing something I get so embarrassed . . .if someone
beeps their horn at me I get stressed and embarrassed and I try not to do it again. . .so
I think a lot of drivers relate to that embarrassment’ (F18)
‘I thought it was visually stimulating’ (F18) 9
‘More people would be like ‘oh, what’s this?’ and want to look at it’ (M17) (2 favourite)
‘I quite like the ad animation because it was different from what we have seen before’
(F18)
‘I think it was good, like as in entertaining to watch’ (F18)
‘Cartoons are probably not an age-appropriate was to communicate to 20 year olds’
(M19)
‘I wasn’t a fan of giving the cars personality or whatever, I just thought that was a bit
childish’ (F21)
‘I think it is a lot less persuasive because it is a cartoon’ (F18)
‘I feel it wouldn’t be taken seriously’ (M18)
‘It puts the focus on the cars – like wow our cars have feelings, we should not crash
because of our cars. It doesn’t put focus on the responsibility of the driver as much’
(F20)
‘I think it tried to but I don’t think it is very effective’ (F21)
‘This one showed a bit of humour which was interesting’ (M20)
‘I found it comedic, so I felt quite amused when I was reading it (F22)
‘Personifying the smartphone was a smart idea’ (M19) 11
‘I liked the idea of the animated mixture in this one’(F21) (3favourite)
‘I liked that one. I thought it was smart’ (F20)
‘Yeah, people would actually enjoy watching it’ (F18)
(continued on next page)
321

Table 5 (continued)
Message concept Themes
2. The message was clear
3. The scene was relatable
4. The smartphone running away may have
been more distracting for the driver
5. The message is targeting a younger audience
9. ‘Voice your Opinion’ 1. The message and scene are believable,
realistic, and relatable
2. Showing both perspectives (i.e., that some
friends check their smartphone and some
friends don’t) is a strength
3. Depicting more than one consequence is a
strength
4. The triviality of the actual communication
(i.e., buying pizza) emphasises the point that
using your smartphone while driving is not
worth the risk
322
Supporting quotes No of times in top 3
‘It definitely gave me a new perspective to think about. Showing a situation in a
different light is more likely to make me stop and think about my actions’ (F17)
‘It was entertaining’ (F18)
‘It is clear, it is not complicated or anything’ (F18)
‘This is a really good message’ (M20)
‘What I am getting out of this is that you’re choosing to do it – it doesn’t want to be
used – I like that message. . .makes it entertaining’ (F18)
‘I liked the context of the traffic jam, that is a very relevant situation’ (M20)
‘I think a lot of people rummage around in the back seat for something so I think this
will get the attention. . ... . .’(M19)
‘The fact is the smartphone was distracting her as compared to if she just found her
smartphone. . .just a bit hypocritical to me. . .’ (F18)
‘Yeah, I think that is a lot more dangerous when people are turning around to the
C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326
back to find their smartphone’ (F18)
‘I thought this one wasn’t very relatable in terms of age bracket. . ... . .’(M20)
‘I don’t think it is particularly age appropriate, a bit condescending....’ (M19)
‘This is the best message so far out of all of them because it is believable, there is 21
some sort of relatability to it, how we have been in a situation, it accurately portrays (15 favourite)
how friends would act to each other cos in the end it also shows the driver not
backing down’ (M19)
‘I liked it as well because it had everything in it – some humour, some reality
conversation, some good advice of being yourself and listen to your friends’ (M18)
‘Very relatable, very realistic’ (M19)
‘This one was brilliant’ (M19)
‘they’ve got both sides of the argument and then obviously the better side wins
which is good’ (F18)
‘there is a good comparison between the people who know it’s wrong and the others
and you can tell people who think that it is right don’t have an appreciation of what
could happen’ (F20)
‘I liked that there was a group of friends saying well this happened to a friend of mine
and this happened to a friend of mine and wouldn’t want to fix anyone else’s car, so I
thought that was good’ (F21)
‘It’s good that they say the things that could happen because of it and then they are
probably more likely to think, maybe a better idea that you didn’t check it’ (F18)
‘It’s a good point like showing, oh, you only wanted me to get pizza on the way over
because it is showing that you could have risked all of those things that the friends
talked about just because they wanted you to buy pizza’ (F18)
‘yeah it’s nice because it focused on how trivial messages usually are’ (M19)
 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326 323

3.3. Message 5 (‘Dating’)

This message, along with Message 8 (‘Animated Smartphone’), amused participants the most; which was supported in the
focus group discussions:
‘I think it is good that the passenger incorporated humour into this message, um,
because it was a lot more effective’ (F18)
On the survey items, however, it scored relatively low on all the effectiveness checks. Many participants indicated that the
message was not clear because the driver was also distracted by the passenger mocking them. An example from the focus
group discussions:
‘I mean the ad should be teaching you to say something like not mocking them and as
soon as you’re mocking them you are even more distracted and something happens
and then you are like. . .when the friend was one of the main causes of the problem’
(F18)
Participants believed the passenger’s response to the driver’s phone use (i.e., ‘hey mate, can’t it wait?’) did not set a strong
enough example for young drivers. For example:
‘I just felt like it half hit the mark’ (F22).

3.4. Message 6 (‘Traffic Lights’)

As anticipated, this message elicited predominantly negative emotions. Specifically, this message concept, along with
Message 7 (‘Animated Cars’), elicited the highest level of negative emotions, in particular, the emotions of annoyance and
agitation. Dillard et al. (1996) found that anger inhibited the effectiveness of messages. While annoyance and agitation
(i.e., the two highest scoring emotions for this message) are discretely different emotions to anger, they may have con-
tributed to this message’s relatively low score on all the survey effectiveness checks. In the focus group discussions, it
was reported that the first half of this message was believable and the driver’s embarrassment was a strong consequence,
for example:
‘It had a really good start like stopped at the traffic lights. . .and then it turns’ (F18); and
‘I think this one is bringing out the embarrassment when there is a lot of cars behind
you’ (F18)
Most participants, however, indicated that it became unrealistic when the smartphone flew out the window and, as a
result, the message may not be taken seriously:
‘. . .the smartphone flying out the window was a bit of a stretch. . .’ (M19)

3.5. Message 7 (‘Animated Cars’)

As anticipated, this message, along with Message 6 (‘Traffic Lights’) elicited the highest level of negative emotions, in gen-
eral, with participants reporting feeling the most sad and fearful. On the effectiveness checks, it scored relatively low on all
the effectiveness checks. While it was reported that the animation would be eye catching, these survey results corresponded
with the focus group discussions. For example:
‘I feel it wouldn’t be taken seriously’ (M18); and
‘I think it is a lot less persuasive because it is a cartoon’ (F18)
Specifically, while the novelty of the animation was seen as eye-catching by many participants, they believed the message
would be more effective for a younger demographic than the target audience, for example:
‘I wasn’t a fan of giving the cars personality or whatever, I just thought that was a bit childish’ (F20)

3.6. Message 8 (‘Animated Smartphone’)

As anticipated, the predominant valence of emotion reported when reading this message was positive. Specifically, this
message, along with Message 5 (‘Dating’) amused participants the most. For example:
‘Yeah, people would actually enjoy watching it’ (F18)
While it received average scores on the effectiveness checks. The qualitative analysis suggested that there was a clear
message regarding not using a smartphone while driving:
324 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

‘What I am getting out of this is that you are choosing to do it – it doesn’t want to be used- I like that message. . .makes it enter-
taining’ (F18)
Some participants believed that having the smartphone run away may have caused the driver to be more distracted. For
example:
‘Yeah, I think it is a lot more dangerous when people are turning around to the back to find their smartphone’ (F18)
Many participants, however, reported that they could relate to this scene and would often reach for their smartphone in a
traffic jam to alleviate their boredom:
‘I think a lot of people rummage around in the back seat for something so I think this will get attention’ (M19)
Previous studies have shown that messages containing the element of surprise and novelty enhanced message effective-
ness (Dillard et al., 1996; Morley, 1987; Morley & Walker, 1987). Indeed, many participants expressed surprise at the novelty
of an animated smartphone and believed this message would be memorable, amusing, and entertaining. For example:
‘It definitely gave me a new perspective to think about. Showing a situation in a different light is more likely to make me stop
and think about my actions’ (F17).

3.7. Message 9 (‘Voice your Opinion’)

This message received positive feedback in both the focus group discussions and the survey. It was listed in the top three
messages for 21 participants and the favourite for 15. As anticipated, the predominant valence of emotion reported was pos-
itive and participants reported feeling the most proud, excited, and flattered when reading this message and it was scored
the highest for persuasiveness, believability, influence on self, influence on others, and as containing useful strategies to help
reduce monitoring/reading social interactive technology while driving. Focus group discussions supported the survey find-
ings as participants reported believing the scene was realistic and the potential consequences were clearly depicted. For
example:
‘This message is the best so far out of all of them because it is believable, there is some sort of relatability to it, how we have been
in a situation, it accurately portrays how friends would act to each other cos in the end it shows the driver not backing down’
(M19); and
‘there is a good comparison between the people who know it’s wrong and the others and you can tell people who think that it is
right don’t have an appreciation of what could happen’ (F20)
Some of the language, however, was not deemed to be realistic and so was amended during the study. In the original mes-
sage outline, for example, the friend who had sent the driver a message said ‘You’re kidding right? Can’t believe you don’t
check your phone!’ was amended to ‘Are you serious? I always check mine when I am driving, that’s why ya have two
hands!’ Overall, the message was reported to be strong, enhanced by the triviality of the communication sent to the driver
which is revealed at the end of the message (i.e., to buy pizza on your way over):
‘It’s a good point like showing, oh, you only wanted me to get pizza on the way over because it is showing that you could have
risked all of those things that the friends talked about just because they wanted you to buy pizza’ (F18)
As reported for Message 4 (‘Good Driver’), and in line with current literature, participants liked that this message mod-
elled positive behaviour and depicted the young driver as responsible, thereby focusing on prevention (Hoekstra & Wegman,
2011; Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007). The underlying belief challenged in this message (i.e., that friends and peers would
approve of a young driver using their smartphone while driving) is also consistent with previous literature that demon-
strated the strong influence of friends’ and peers’ opinions on whether a young driver uses their smartphone while driving
(e.g., Buckley, Chapman, & Sheehan, 2014; Gershon, Zhu, Klauer, Dingus, & Simons-Morton, 2017; Trivedi, Haynie, Bible, Liu,
& Simons-Morton, 2017). In particular, these studies have found that young drivers whose friends and peers were more likely
to use their smartphone while driving were themselves more likely to use their smartphone while driving. Buckley et al.
(2014), suggested that interventions targeting this belief should take into account the strong desire for young drivers to
please and fit in with their friends and peers. It is encouraging, therefore, that this message was deemed to be the most effec-
tive in the integrated analysis, given that the predominant opinion of the young driver’s friends depicted in this message was
not to use one’s smartphone while driving.

4. General discussion

The current study investigated which of nine public education messages aimed at monitoring/reading and responding to
social interactive technology on smartphones were reported as being the most persuasive by members of the target audi-
ence; namely, young drivers aged 17–25 years. Concept testing is a vital step in message development as it ensures that
the messages are actually operating as intended, as opposed to the assumption that they are operating as intended based
on the researcher’s expectations.
 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326 325

Based on this integrated data analysis, Message 4 (‘Good Driver’), Message 8 (‘Animated Smartphone’), and Message 9
(‘Voice your Opinion’) were deemed the most effective messages for each of the three underlying belief categories2. Specif-
ically, ‘Good Driver’ targeted ‘believing you are a good driver makes it easier’; ‘Animated Smartphone’ targeted ‘slow moving
traffic makes it easier’; and ‘Voice Your Opinion’ targeted ‘friends and peers would approve’ of a young driver monitoring/read-
ing or responding to communications on their smartphone. Of note, these three messages all elicited positive emotion and mod-
elled positive behaviour, thereby supporting past research suggesting that young drivers respond better to messages that are
positive in nature (e.g., Hoekstra & Wegman, 2011; Lewis, Watson, & Tay, 2007; Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007). Participants
also believed that, while these three messages targeted monitoring/reading behaviour, they could be readily adapted to target
responding behaviour with very few changes to the message content, thereby avoiding the possible influence that different
message content may have on their persuasive impact.
A major strength of this study lies in its mixed-methods approach and its ability to elicit feedback regarding all aspects of
the message content directly from members of the target audience as both individual feedback (i.e., the survey) and as a
group discussion. This feedback included the effectiveness of the message manipulations (e.g., of the underlying beliefs
and the emotional responses), the realistic nature of the language used, and the practicality of the suggested strategies. In
accordance with Step 3 of the SatMDT (Lewis et al., 2016), concept testing may involve refinement of the message concepts.
Indeed, the current study identified examples of unrealistic language (particularly in Message 9) which were later amended.
In addition, the strategy ‘put it in the boot’ was consistently deemed impractical and was later replaced with ‘put it right out
of sight’. These formal checks of message content have not always been conducted in past research (Dillard et al., 1996;
Eveland and McLeod, 1999; LaTour & Rotfeld, 1997; Lewis et al., 2009; Phillips et al., 2011; Plant et al., 2011) and, as such,
concept testing should be considered an important step in the development of future road safety messages.
There are some limitations of the current study that should also be acknowledged. As for other studies assessing the
impact of persuasive messages (Elliott & Armitage, 2009; Glendon & Cernecca, 2003; Lewis, Watson, White, et al., 2007), this
study utilised a within-subjects design to assess the effects of the messages. It is possible, however, that the effectiveness of a
message may have been affected by exposure to the previous message (Tormala & Petty, 2007). While all messages were
shown in the same sequence, this sequence was determined randomly. Although it is acknowledged that it is not possible
to separate the effect of the message from the effect of the order, by holding the ordering of the advertisements constant
across all group sessions, any effects would have been consistent across sessions.
Almost all of the participants in this study were university students. University students may be more educated than the
general population, particularly regarding the dangers of smartphone use while driving. They may also feel more account-
able to their parents, given it is reasonable to assume that a larger proportion of students live with their parents compared to
young people who are in the workforce and living independently. This accountability may have influenced the effectiveness
of Message 4 (‘Good Driver’) in particular. In this message, the young driver wanted their father to know that they were not
using their smartphone while driving, thereby being the good driver they said they were. The study sample, therefore, may
limit the generalisability of the findings.
In conclusion, the current study adds to the extant literature by highlighting the importance of rigorously concept testing
new message content with the target audience. Specifically, this study tested nine road safety public education messages
aimed at young drivers monitoring/reading and responding to social interactive technology on their smartphones. The inte-
grated findings from the quantitative and qualitative components of this study supported current research suggesting that
road safety messages that model positive behaviour and elicit positive emotions may be especially persuasive for young
drivers.

References

AAMI. (2012). Young driver index 2012. Retrieved from www.aami.com.au/sites/default/files/fm/news/Young%20Driver%20Index%22012_12_14.pdf.

AAMI. (2015). AAMI targets social stigma to tackle distracted driving. Retrieved from https://www.aami.com.au/media-centre/aami-targets-social-stigma-
tackle-distracted-driving.html.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978
(91)90020-T.
Atchley, P., Atwood, S., & Boulton, A. (2011). The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
43(1), 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.08.003.
Authors (2016). Young drivers’ engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphones: Critical beliefs to target in public education messages.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 96, 208–218.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Australian demographic statistics, December, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/
3101.0.
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Buckley, L., Chapman, R., & Sheehan, M. (2014). Young driver distraction: State of the evidence and directions for behavior change programs. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 54(5), S16–S21.
Creswell, J., Klassen, A., Plano Clark, V., & Smith, K. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. August 2011. National Institutes
of Health.: Retrieved from https://obssr.od.nih.gov/training/mixed-methods-research/.
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. (2014). Road trauma Australia 2014 Statistical Summary. Retrieved from http://bitre.gov.au/
publications/ongoing/files/Road_trauma_Australia_2014_statistical_summary_N_ISSN.pdf.
Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of aids psas: Fear appeals do more than scare
people. Communication Research, 23(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001002.

2
Please note that is not the intention of this study that all three messages would be run as part of a single campaign against smartphone use while driving.
326 C.S. Gauld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 60 (2019) 311–326

Dillard, J. P., Shen, L., & Vail, R. G. (2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human
Communication Research, 33(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00308.x.
Elliott, B. (1993). Road safety mass media campaigns: A meta analysis (9780642512529;0642512523;). Retrieved from Canberra:
Elliott, M., & Armitage, C. (2009). Promoting drivers’ compliance with speed limits: Testing an intervention based on the theory of planned behaviour. British
Journal of Psychology, 100(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X318626.
Eveland, W. P., Jr., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). The effect of social desirability on perceived media impact: Implications for third-person perceptions.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 11(4), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/11.4.315.
Gauld, C., Lewis, I., & White, K. M. (2014). Concealing their communication: Exploring psychosocial predictors of young drivers’ intentions and engagement
in concealed texting. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 62, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.016.
Gauld, C., Lewis, I., White, K., & Watson, B. (2016). Key Beliefs Influencing Young Drivers’ Engagement with Social Interactive Technology on Their
Smartphones: A Qualitative Study. Traffic Injury Prevention, 17(2), 128.
Gauld, C., Lewis, I., White, K. M., Fleiter, J., & Watson, B. (2017). Smartphone use while driving: What factors predict young drivers’ intentions to initiate,
read, and respond to social interactive technology? Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.023.
Glendon, A. I., & Cernecca, L. (2003). Young drivers’ responses to anti-speeding and anti-drink-driving messages. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology
and Behaviour, 6(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(03)00026-3.
Goodwin, A. H., O’Brien, N. P., & Foss, R. D. (2012). Effect of North Carolina’s restriction on teenage driver cell phone use two years after implementation.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 48, 363–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.02.006.
Gershon, P., Zhu, C., Klauer, S., Dingus, T., & Simons-Morton, B. (2017). Teen’s distracted driving behaviour: Prevalence and predictors. Journal of Safety
Research, 63, 157.
Hoekstra, T., & Wegman, F. (2011). Improving the effectiveness of road safety campaigns: Current and new practices. IATSS Research, 34(2), 80–86. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2011.01.003.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2014). Introduction to research methods in psychology (vol. 4) New York: Pearson.
Jessop, G. (2008). Who’s on the line? Policing and enforcing laws relating to mobile phone use while driving. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 36
(3), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2008.03.001.
LaTour, M. S., & Rotfeld, H. J. (1997). There are threats and (maybe) fear-caused arousal: Theory and confusions of appeals to fear and fear arousal itself.
Journal of Advertising, 26(3), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1997.10673528.
Lewis, I., Ho, B., & Lennon, A. (2016). Designing and evaluating a persuasive child restraint television commercial. Traffic Injury Prevention, 17(3), 271–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1072626.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & Tay, R. (2007). Examining the effectiveness of physical threats in road safety advertising: The role of the third-person effect, gender,
and age. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 10(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.05.001.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2008). An examination of message-relevant affect in road safety messages: Should road safety advertisements aim to
make us feel good or bad? Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 11(6), 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.03.003.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2009). What do we really know about designing and evaluating road safety advertising? : Current knowledge and future
challenges. Paper presented at the 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research Policing and Education Conference: Smarter, Safer Directions, Sydney.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2010). Response efficacy: The key to minimizing rejection and maximizing acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding
messages. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(2), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.09.008.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2013). Extending the explanatory utility of the EPPM beyond fear-based persuasion. Health Communication, 28(1),
84–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.743430.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2016). The Step approach to Message Design and Testing (SatMDT): A conceptual framework to guide the development
and evaluation of persuasive health messages. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 97, 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.07.019.
Lewis, I., White, K. M., Watson, B., & Elliott, B. (2017) Insights into evaluating road safety advertising based upon the Step Approach to Message Design and
Testing (SatMDT). In 2017 Australasian Road Safety Conference, 10-12 October 2017, Perth, W.A.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., White, K. M., Elliott, B., Thompson, J., & Cockfield, S. (2012). How males and females define speeding and how they’d feel getting caught
for it: Some implications for anti-speeding message development. Paper presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.
Lewis, I., Watson, B., White, K. M., & Tay, R. (2007). Promoting public health messages: Should we move beyond fear-evoking appeals in road safety?
Qualitative Health Research, 17(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732306296395.
McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., Strouse, L. M., & Farmer, C. M. (2010). Long-term effects of handheld cell phone laws on driver handheld cell phone use. Traffic
Injury Prevention, 11(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903515427.
Morley, D. D. (1987). Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 54(2), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637758709390225.
Morley, D. D., & Walker, K. B. (1987). The role of importance, novelty, and plausibility in producing belief change. Communication Monographs, 54(4),
436–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390243.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19,
pp. 123–205). New York: Academic.
Phillips, R. O., Ulleberg, P., & Vaa, T. (2011). Meta-analysis of the effect of road safety campaigns on accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(3),
1204–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.002.
Plant, B., Reza, F., & Irwin, J. (2011). A systematic review of how anti-speeding advertisements are evaluated. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety,
22(4), 18–33.
Rainie, L. (2012). Samrtphone ownership update: September 2012. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/09/11/smartphone-ownership-
update-september-2012/.
Shi, J., Xiao, Y., & Atchley, P. (2016). Analysis of factors affecting drivers’ choice to engage with a mobile phone while driving in Beijing. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 37, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.12.003.
Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert (2015). The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception
and Performance.. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000100.
Tay, R., & Watson, B. (2002). Changing Drivers’ Intentions and behaviours using fear-based driver fatigue advertisements. Health Marketing Quarterly, 19(4),
55–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J026v19n04_05.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Contextual contrast and perceived knowledge: Exploring the implications for persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.007.
Trivedi, N., Haynie, D., Bible, J., Liu, D., & Simons-Morton, B. (2017). Cell phone use while driving: Prospective association with emerging adult use. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 106, 450–455.
Waddell, L. P., & Wiener, K. K. K. (2014). What’s driving illegal mobile phone use? Psychosocial influences on drivers’ intentions to use hand-held mobile
phones. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.10.008.
Watson, B. (1996). Enhancing driver management in Queensland. Retrieved from Fortitude Valley, Qld.
WHO. (2015). Global state report on road safety. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals – The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03637759209376276.