CRICOS No. 00213J

What do we currently know about designing & evaluating road safety advertising?

Presented By Dr Ioni LewisAcknowledgements: 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

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

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 paper @ this conference – “Is there an App for

that?: Social media uses for road safety”

Questions/comments?

Dr Ioni Lewis

i.lewis@qut.edu.au

Mark your Diaries!

International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013)

26-29 August 2013, Brisbane