Download - CRICOS No. 00213J
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 [email protected]
Mark your Diaries!
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013)
26-29 August 2013, Brisbane