In the context of safety messages about cell phone use while driving, whether the message is framed in terms of loss or gain impacts the ability of the message to change the driver's intentions? Can we increase the effectiveness of such messages by inducing high problem involvement in individuals? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe use of cell phones to call and text while driving is an increasingly significant problem. Crash data from 2010 to 2014 showed illegal use of a mobile phone was a contributing factor in 236 crashes, including seven fatalities and 116 resulting in injuries (Transport NSW). However, there is the problem of under-reporting which makes it difficult to establish how much mobile phone use while driving contributes to crash involvement, so the number of crashes resulting from this behavior could be even greater (Rowden and Watson 2014). Furthermore, extensive research has shown that young people are the most at-risk group when it comes to this behavior due to their adoption of new technologies and lack of awareness about the risks of cell phone use while driving (Cazzulino et al ). Recent campaigns that have sought to address this problem in Australia include the "Take your hand off it" campaign. Gain-framed safety messages about cell phone use while driving, compared to loss-framed ones, will be more effective in changing people's intentions towards this behavior. The effectiveness of any road safety campaign depends on how the message is structured. Hoekstra and Wegman (2011) argue that the application of prospect theory can change people's behavior on the road. This theory was developed by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) and examines how an individual might react to information depending on whether it was framed positively, i.e. in terms of earnings; or negatively, i.e. in terms of losses. More specifically, gain-framed messages are effective when they promote prudent behavior and loss-framed messages are effective when they promote risky behavior (Tversky and Kahneman (1981). Chaurand et al (2015) found that in the field of security road there were many inconsistencies in the results of previous studies that had tested this theory, since both types of framing proved to be effective even if the behavior encouraged was cautious and non-risky intention as the dependent variable, so they did not take into account the behavior real on the road (Chaurand et al 2015). To test this they undertook a naturalistic study on a motorway in France that measured the speed of cars after passing a framed gain message or a framed loss message. Although they found that the framed message of gain was the most effective, the study did not take into account other factors that may influence an individual's processing and response to how the message is framed, including how. are involved in the issue at hand. Safety messages that induce high involvement, compared to those that induce low involvement, will be more effective in changing people's intentions regarding unsafe driving behaviors. Mahewan and Meyers-Levy (1990) argue that issue involvement is an important factor when processing gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Through their research they have.