Risk Perceptions of Mobile Phone Use While Driving

Mathew P. White · J. Richard Eiser · Peter Richard Harris

181 citations0/0 files storedRisk Analysis

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Human-Automation Interaction and Safety Traffic and Road Safety Risk Perception and Management

Abstract

Numerous governments have introduced regulations governing the use of mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Despite significant research into the "objective" risks, there is relatively little research into risk perceptions either in relation to other in-car distractions or with respect to the factors underlying such perceptions. The current article reports on two studies addressing these issues. Study 1 (N= 199) found that whereas the use of hand-held sets is seen as one of the riskiest activities to perform while driving, the risks of using a hands-free kit are perceived to be relatively small. Study 2 (N= 1,320) found that nearly half of all drivers in the sample with a mobile phone reported having used it while driving and that, overall, the probability of having an accident was perceived to be less for oneself than for one's peers, indicating an optimistic bias. Two factors underpinned risk perceptions, "impact" including perceived severity and equitability, and "controllability" including immediacy, detectability, and probability. While higher "impact" scores were associated with increased preferences for restrictions on the use of hand-held mobiles while driving, the "controllability" scores moderated this relationship such that when perceived "controllability" was low, restriction preferences were high irrespective of perceived "impact." However, when "controllability" was high, restriction preferences remained high when "impact" was high but were low when "impact" was low. Given the growing number of in-car technological innovations, it is suggested that regulators act strategically, rather than finding themselves developing a series of "hazard-specific" regulations, which may ultimately lack coherence.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 181 citations exist upstream.

References

1987Perception of Risk 1998Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Review and Avenues for Further Research 2000The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits 1978How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits 1996Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and "freezing."1999Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield 2001Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone 1995The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation

Cited by

2014Is Dysfunctional Use of the Mobile Phone a Behavioural Addiction? Confronting Symptom‐Based Versus Process‐Based Approaches 2017Self-reported dependence on mobile phones in young adults: A European cross-cultural empirical survey 2018Problematic Mobile Phone Use and Addiction Across Generations: the Roles of Psychopathological Symptoms and Smartphone Use 2009Mobile phone use while driving: An investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers’ hands-free and hand-held mobile phone use

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.