Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Statistical Format and Population Specificity on Adolescent Perceptions of Cell Phone Use While Driving

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on risk communication has established that people are influenced by numerical values as well as geographical reference points, or populations, in statistical messages. The ratio bias theory predicts that messages featuring higher casualty numbers will be more influential than similar messages featuring smaller values. However, research on the effects of population specificity predicts that risk messages containing specific populations with naturally lower casualty values will be more effective than similar messages containing larger populations and proportionally greater numbers. This study investigated the contradiction between ratio bias and the effects of population specificity. Students in a drivers’ education class (N = 112) were randomly assigned to read one of four sets of statistical messages about cell phone use while driving that featured either a general (for example, United States) or specific population (for example, Nassau County), and was expressed using one of two statistical formats, frequencies (for example, “9,000 car accidents…”) or probabilities (for example, “25 % of car accidents…”). Participants then rated their intentions to and perceived risk of using cell phones while driving. Participants who viewed messages featuring general populations along with their naturally larger statistics reported lower intentions to use cell phones while driving than those who were exposed to messages with smaller numbers, but more specific populations. Results suggest that emphasizing larger-valued numbers may be a more effective means of risk communication than depicting specific conditions. These findings have implications for the enhancement of driver safety education to discourage the use of cell phones while driving by teenage drivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alonso, A., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2003). Irrational decisions: Attending to numbers rather than ratios. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1537–1547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, C., & Newell, B. (2008). How to make a risk seem riskier: The ratio bias vs. construal level theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 411–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, L., Macfarlane, S., Yanez, C., & Imai, W. (1995). Risk-perception: Differences between adolescents and adults. Health Psychology, 14(3), 217–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819–829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edgar Snyder & Associates (2010). Car accident cell phone statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

  • Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, L., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 534–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Center for Risky Analysis (2002). Cell phone use while driving. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from: http://www.acnsc.org/latest/cell-phone-use-while-driving-fact-sheet.html

  • Monahan, J., Heilbrum, K., Silver, E., Nabors, E., Bone, J., & Slovic, P. (2002). Communicating violence risk: Frequency formats, vivid outcomes, and forensic settings. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(2), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemme, H., & White, K. (2010). Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1257–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raghubir, P. (2008). Is 1/10 > 10/100? The effect of denominator salience on perceptions of base rates of health risk. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(2008), 327–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghubir, P., & Menon, G. (1998). AIDS and me, never the twain shall meet: The effects of information accessibility on judgments of risk and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 52–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Internet. (2009). Teens and mobile phones over the past five year: Pew Internet looks back. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/14--Teens-and-Mobile-Phones-Data-Memo.aspx.

  • Pinto-Prades, J., Martinez-Perez, J., & Abellán-Perpiñán, J. (2006). The influence of the ratio bias phenomenon on the elicitation of health states utilities. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(2), 118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Monahan, J., & MacGregor, D. G. (2000). Violence risk assessment and communications: The effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability vs. frequency formats. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 271–296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teigen, K. (2005). The proximity heuristic in judgments of accident probabilities. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 423–440.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kaheman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pligt, J. (1996). Risk protection and self protective behavior. European Psychologist, 1, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, N. D. (1993). Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 12, 324–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamigishi, K. (1997). When a 12.86 % mortality is more dangerous than 24.14 %: Implications for risk communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 495–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, R., Wu, C., Rau, P., & Zhang, W. (2009). Young driving learners’ intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving. Transportation Research, 12, 208–217.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Science Research Program, Roslyn High School, 475 Round Hill Road, Roslyn Hts, NY, 11576, USA

    Alexander Wu & Allyson J. Weseley

Authors
  1. Alexander Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allyson J. Weseley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allyson J. Weseley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wu, A., Weseley, A.J. The Effects of Statistical Format and Population Specificity on Adolescent Perceptions of Cell Phone Use While Driving. Curr Psychol 32, 32–43 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9161-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-012-9161-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation