CRICOS No J What do we currently know about designing & evaluating road safety advertising? Presented By Dr Ioni Lewis Acknowledgements: Prof. Barry Watson & A/Prof. Katherine White

Presentation Overview What we currently know  content design and evaluation The direct role (persuasive effects) of advertising Review of some key findings within a conceptual framework of the persuasive process Definitional inconsistencies, methodological limitations, & gaps in existing knowledge Suggested issues/directions for future advertising research

A conceptual framework of the persuasive process Pre- existing individual Message- related Individual responses Message outcomes Message Exposure

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

Includes socio-demographic and belief-based factors Gender –Males engage in more risky behaviour (Harré et al., 1996) –Regard oneself as a more skilful driver (Harré et al., 2005) Beliefs –Attitude towards issue/behaviour –Involvement (personal relevance) with issue/behaviour Message pre-testing Pre-existing individual factors Message-related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

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

Message-related characteristics: Type of emotional appeal Negative vs Positive appeals Fear-based vs Humour-based emotional appeals 2 key findings in relation to fear vs humour Gender differences in effects (Lewis et al., 2008, Goldenbeld et al., 2008) –Humour-based more effective for males –Fear-based more effective for females Time differences in effects (Lewis et al., 2008, Lammers et al.,1982) –Humour-based over time, follow-up measures –Fear-based on immediate measures Pre-existing individual factors Message- related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

Defining “Positive” and “Negative” appeals What is “positive” and “negative”? Positive versus negative emotion Message framing effects (gain versus loss messages) Offering of rewards and receipt of punishment  modelling of behaviour Implication - difficult for conclusions about when best to use which approach and for whom

Message-related characteristics: Response efficacy Response efficacy = provision of coping strategies –“Take a taxi” –“Monitor your speed” Fear-based appeals (Witte, 1992, Floyd et al., 2000) Positive emotion-based appeals (Lewis et al., 2010) Pre-existing individual factors Message-related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

Individual responses to message characteristics Pre- existing individual Message- related Individual responses Message outcomes Message Exposure

Individuals’ perceptions of message-related characteristics Inclusion of this phase in the persuasive process important because recognises that it is individuals who ultimately determine whether messages (and their characteristics) function as intended Manipulation checks essential (but not always included) Applicable to all message-related characteristics (e.g., emotions evoked, response efficacy perceptions) Pre-existing individual factors Message-related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

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

Message Outcomes: Definitional & methodological issues What is message effectiveness? Raise awareness? Change attitudes and/or behaviour? –Implications for evaluation – ‘apples vs oranges’ Message effectiveness = acceptance, persuasiveness –Message acceptance + Message rejection Message rejection predicts self-reported speeding behaviour over and above the variance explained by message acceptance (Lewis et al., 2008) Message rejection seldom assessed Pre-existing individual factors Message-related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

A key methodological issue in evaluation studies Unrealistic exposure and overt response measurement Exposure  artificial & contrived –Participants fully informed & aware of study’s purpose –Class/Lab-based & university students –Single exposure to messages Response Measurement  overt & self-report Pre-existing individual factors Message-related factors Individual responses Message outcomes

Gaps in existing knowledge Absence of guiding theory –Most campaign & message design is atheoretical (Elliott,1993) –Implications for evaluation – why it worked/did not work? Limited behaviours addressed  Drink driving & speeding –Fatigue, inattention, mobile phone use, drug driving

Where to from here for future advertising research? Beyond other issues already highlighted there is a need to: Continue the search for innovative message strategies Address major methodological limitations –Exposure  Clutter reels? (e.g., Norris et al., 2003) –Behavioural measurement (e.g., GPS & speeding) Understand more about new mediums for road safety messages (social media) –Murray & Lewis this conference – “Is there an App for that?: Social media uses for road safety”

Questions/comments? Dr Ioni Lewis Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013) August 2013, Brisbane