The higher they go the harder they could fall: The impact of risk-glorifying commercials on risk behavior

Standing-up against moral violations: The predicting role of attribution, kinship, and severity

Witnesses of moral violations stand up for their moral principles, despite facing substantial costs for intervening. Notwithstanding its importance, little is known whether responsibility attributions and the relation between the victim and a witness (i.e., kinship) have different effects on the intention to intervene in situations of different severity (e.g., moral courage situations). We predict an interaction between the situation's severity and the victims' responsibility for their plight. In less-severe situations, witnesses would be less willing to help when they perceive the victim to be responsible for their plight. However, those who are not seen as responsible would receive more help. For more-severe situations, responsibility is predicted to have no effect. Opposite effects are predicted for the relationship between the helper and the victim. We further predict that perceived costs for helping mediates witnesses' willingness to intervene. Two studies showed that people are more willing to help individuals who are perceived as being innocent, but only in less-severe situations. In more-severe situations, people's willingness to intervene increases, regardless of responsibility attributions. We did not observe effects for kinship. Moreover, we provide partial evidence that witnesses of more-severe situations indeed accept higher costs for intervention.

Deterring illegal smartphone use while driving: Are perceptions of risk information associated with the impact of informal sanctions?

Advertising campaigns have used threat appeals to increase the perceptions of risk associated with dangerous driving behaviours. Building on recent research that suggests increasing the pertinence of informal sanctions (sense of guilt, fear of peer disapproval, or fear of hurting oneself and others) decreases the likelihood of illegal smartphone engagement while driving, this study aimed to determine if perceptions of risk information, that is, how effective drivers believe the information is in deterring their illegal use, is associated with perceptions of informal sanctions. An online survey of 1027 Victorians who self-reported illegal smartphone use while driving asked participants to rate the personal deterrent effectiveness of five types of risks associated with illegal smartphone use while driving. A hierarchical linear regression model explored the associations between the most effective risks and each informal sanction. Female drivers were more likely than male drivers to experience guilt, fear of social loss and fear of physical loss when using their smartphones illegally. More frequent illegal smartphone engagement while driving was associated with decreased impact of informal sanctions. Female drivers were more likely than male drivers to perceive each risk as effective. The most effective piece of information was, "Contributes to 16% of Victorian road deaths and serious injuries annually"; it was also the least known (32.7% males, 26.7% females). This message, alongside, "Increases risk of a crash comparable to those associated with driving under the influence of alcohol or cannabis" and, "A 2 s glance at your phone while driving at 50 km/h effectively means driving blind for 27 m", were associated with stronger perceptions of guilt, fear of peer disapproval, or fear of hurting oneself and others when thinking about using a smartphone illegally while driving. These results suggest tailoring and targeting these specific risk information may be effective in deterring illegal smartphone use while driving.