Busting the 3,000 Mile Myth Reducing the Volume of Used Oil by Encouraging California Drivers to Go Longer Between Oil Changes From a report to the California Integrated Waste Management Board

Presented by: The Social and Behavioral Research Institute California State University San Marcos

Project Team Allen Risley, M.A. Director of Research Michael Large, Ph.D. (Former Quantitative Study Director) P. Wesley Schultz, Ph.D., Faculty Advisor Chuck Flacks, M.S., Study Director Jolin Haley, Research Assistant Sam Ballard, Research Assistant Dana Stokes, CIWMB

Project Goals Factors influencing oil-change behavior Demographic trends of frequent vs. infrequent changers Create messages to encourage going longer between changes Test messages

Oil Change Survey 1,002 telephone interviews conducted with randomly selected drivers between December 1 st and January 12 th % women, 46% men Average age = 49 Sample was more Caucasian, less Hispanic, more multi-ethnic, and better educated than the expected values given the State of California’s averages in the 2000 Census

Most Important Factors Oil Change Behavior

Most Go to Professionals

How Do They Know When to Change?

Most Use Stickers…

…But Report Other Means

How Often Do They Change? Median and most reported = 3,000 miles, Average = 4,200 miles Compared to manufacturer recommendations Frequent Changers = more frequent than manufacturer recommendations Waiters = at or below manufacturer recommendations

Most Drivers Frequent Changers

Changers Vs. Waiters Changers More likely to be women More likely to drive imported cars More likely to be normal (less severe conditions) drivers More likely to use synthetic oil More likely to have a reminder sticker on windshield

Most Important Factors Greatest concern = engine wear Least concern = saving time Frequent Changers were more likely to be very concerned about engine wear Saving money and saving time were more likely to be considered very important by Waiters Strongest predictor of Frequent Changer was engine wear

Myth Busting Creating Messages to Influence Behavior

Theory: Central Route Vs. Peripheral Applying the work of Dr. P. Wesley Schultz

Routes to Persuasion Central route to persuasion Analytic, high effort, cogent arguments Can produce durable, long-term changes in behavior and agreement Peripheral route to persuasion Intuitive, low effort, use standard measures Can produce bigger changes in behavior, but not agreement

Routes to Persuasion Persuasive Appeal Central Route Peripheral Route AudienceProcessingPersuasion Behavior Change Analytical and motivated Not analytical or involved High effort, elaborate, Counter-argue Low effort, use peripheral cues Cogent arguments invoke enduring agreement Cues trigger liking and acceptance (temporary)

Crafting the Message I Identified “largest psychographic profile” Women Age Use professional oil changers or dealers

Crafting the Message II Trust the Maker The 3,000 Mile Myth You Can Do Better Informal pre-testing narrowed the field to “The 3,000 Mile Myth”

Testing on Focus Groups Two Groups One rural, one urban One coastal, one inland One Northern CA, one Southern CA Sites were Taylor Research in San Diego and Elliott Benson Research in Sacramento Consisted of “largest psychographic profile” – women, 30-60, used professional changers

Follow the Manual 3,000 mile myth message: 73% of California motorists believe they should change their oil more often than manufacturer recommends Improvements in vehicle design result in less engine wear Oil composition improvements mean people can extend their intervals Bottom line – Follow Manufacturers Recommendations!

Positive Reactions to “3,000 Mile Myth” Messages Information believable & represented a clear call to action Showing sponsorship (CIWMB) provided credibility Participants motivated to find out more about the issue & perhaps change behavior Participants wanted more information – Website

Negative Reactions to “The 3,000 Mile Myth” Messages Participants became more skeptical with more study Data in messages too focused on “efficient” cars Participants felt that perhaps only newer cars could go longer between changes Participants saw environmental benefits, but planned on maintaining their frequent changes to be “on the safe side” or to “maintain their warranties.”

Reactions to Synthetic Oil Messages Big Yawn – Not a subject people were comfortable discussing Not enough knowledge about costs and benefits More comfortable with oil change frequency messages Some participants interested; but none wanted to rush out and try synthetics

Conclusions Data show that most California drivers change oil more frequently than manufacturers recommend Biggest fear = engine wear Prompting people with central route messages creates some discomfort with their behavior choices Targeted messages to Frequent Changers show potential to produce behavioral change