effects of persuasive communication and group discussions

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Effects of persuasive communication and group discussionson acceptability of anti-speeding policies for male

and female drivers

Charles Goldenbeld *,1, Divera Twisk 2, Sjoerd Houwing 3

Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV, Duindoorn 32, 2262 AR Leidschendam, The Netherlands

Received 20 June 2007; received in revised form 2 November 2007; accepted 3 November 2007

Abstract

In an experiment on acceptability of anti-speeding interventions, male and female car drivers were randomly assigned tofour information conditions: (C1) combination of neutrally toned written communication and fear appeal anti-speeding tv-spot, (C2) written communication only, (C3) fear appeal anti-speeding tv-spot only, (C4) neither written communicationnor fear appeal tv-spot. It was tested whether a first time exposure to these stimuli would produce changes in the accept-ability of a reduction in the speed limit of rural access roads from 80 to 60 km/h, and whether after exposure, acceptabilitywould shift resulting from group discussions about the measure. Results showed that fear appeal had counterproductiveeffects on male but not on female drivers on three indicators of acceptability. For both genders, group discussion shiftedattitude ratings in a negative direction. For females, this effect could partially be reduced by neutrally toned knowledgebased information.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Persuasive communication; Acceptability; Speed limit; Attitude; Fear appeal

1. Introduction

Persuasive communication is extensively used in traffic safety to influence opinions and beliefs with theobjective to improve acceptability of, and social co-operation with, road safety measures and/or programmes.Research into its effects primarily deals with intra-individual processes (e.g. individual cognitions, attitudes,perceived social norm) without taking into account the social process by which these are formed. In contrast,in everyday life persons verify their opinions and attitudes by comparing them with those of relevant others or

1369-8478/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.trf.2007.11.001

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 (0) 70 3173333; fax: +31 (0) 70 3201261.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Goldenbeld), [email protected] (D. Twisk), [email protected]

(S. Houwing).1 Tel.: +31 (0) 70 3173364.2 Tel.: +31 (0) 70 3173365.3 Tel.: +31 (0) 70 3173386.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 207–220

www.elsevier.com/locate/trf


reference groups (Suls & Wheeler, 2000). Therefore, in the study of persuasive communication it is of vitalimportance to understand how the effects stand up to, or combine with, those resulting from everyday socialcommunication. This is particularly relevant if the targeted problems can be characterized as situations inwhich private interests are at odds with collective interests, and the effectiveness of the measure is dependenton the co-operation of the majority. In these so-called ‘‘social dilemmas’’, persuasive communication may leadto increased problem awareness without having any further effect on the willingness to contribute to the solu-tion, which may well be related to the individual’s assessment of the likely co-operation by others (Klander-mans, 1992). In the area of road safety, drivers’ speed choice is an example of a social dilemma. At a collectivelevel speed violations will result in more accidents, whereas at an individual level the driver merely experiencesthe immediate personal advantages of speeding.

This article presents results from an experiment investigating the effects of different types of persuasive com-munication on the social acceptability of a speed-related safety measure. The exploratory part of the experi-ment examines to what extent one central indicator of acceptability, namely attitudes towards introduction ofa measure, is influenced by informal social communication (e.g. group discussion). The recent introduction ofnew 60 km/h zones on rural roads in the Netherlands,4 was used as a case entailing elements of a socialdilemma.

1.1. Acceptability of speed-related traffic measures

Consistent with previous studies, we identified the following factors which together determine the ‘‘socialacceptability’’: drivers need to be aware of a problem arising from certain behaviour (e.g. Steg, 2003); appraisean intervention or policy as effective, efficient, just, and likeable (e.g. Bamberg & Rolle, 2002; Ittner, Becker, &Kals, 2003); and be prepared to conform to the norms or guidelines set forth by the policy or intervention. Inthis study we measured acceptability of anti-speeding policies in terms of: (1) problem perception with regardto speeding, (2) various attitudinal ratings regarding efficiency and justness of the measure, and (3) intentionsto comply with the measure.

1.2. Type of communication and acceptability

Research has shown that the different factors comprising acceptability may be influenced differently byinformative persuasive communication targeted on attitudes, beliefs and intentions. In the social-psycholog-ical literature, change in general attitudes often does not result in similar change in behavioural intentions(e.g. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Although change in attitude may be a necessary condition for change in inten-tions, by itself it is often not sufficient to bring about the desired change. In the specific area of acceptance ofspeed reducing measures, campaign evaluations showed non-correspondent findings for different dimensionsof acceptability of speed reducing measures and campaigns. For example, the Scottish ‘Foolsspeed’ campaignwhich was developed on the basis of the Theory of Planned Behaviour, positively influenced attitudes andbeliefs (related to danger perception), but did not influence behavioural intentions to speed (Stead, MacKin-tosh, Tagg, & Eadie, 2002). A Dutch evaluation of an informative 30 km/h-publicity campaign also failed toshow any effects on intentions to conform to the speed limit (Feenstra & Gotz, 2002). In view of the above, wehypothesised that a persuasive, informative anti-speeding communication concerning 60 km/h-zones wouldimprove attitudes regarding speed limits and compliance, but would not change intentions to comply witha new 60 km/h-limit (Hypothesis 1).

In addition to offering information about possible benefits of a measure, persuasive communication may goone step further by appealing to emotions. In road safety campaigns, the use of emotional language, portray-ing emotion-evoking scenes, is regularly used. One type of persuasive communication used in traffic safetycampaigns is the so-called ‘‘fear appeal’’. These are persuasive messages in which people are presented withfear arousing risk information to convince them to avoid risk-related behaviour and to adopt protective

4 In the Netherlands, the road safety policy is to change the customary 80 km/h limit on rural access roads with a mixture of slow andfast traffic to a 60 km/h limit provided that the change of limit is compatible with the function and design of the road.

208 C. Goldenbeld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 207–220


behaviour. Recent reviews concluded that fear arousal may have inhibiting as well as facilitating effects onprotective motivation and protective action (Das, 2001; De Vries, Ruiter, & Leegwater, 2002; Ruiter, Abra-ham, & Kok, 2001). In the first stage of this study, the effects of informative persuasive communicationand anti-speeding fear appeal on acceptability of 60 km/h-zones were compared. Given the mixed findingsin the literature, no hypotheses regarding the direction of the effects of an anti-speeding fear appeal weredeveloped.

1.3. Gender differences and acceptability of anti-speeding measures

In general, male drivers are less safety oriented than female drivers – a difference which manifests itself inhigher crash rates, higher levels of offending and risk seeking, and more indifference or negative attitudestowards traffic rules, speed limits, and traffic enforcement (e.g. Cauzard & Quimby, 2000; Laapotti, Keskinen,& Rajalin, 2003; Social Issuers Research Centre, 2004). In view of these findings a stronger safety orientationamongst females is expected in this study, indicated by less self-reported speeding, positive attitudes towards60 km/h zones, higher problem awareness with regard to speeding, and positive self-reported intentions tocomply with the new 60 km/h limit. Based on this, it is hypothesised that persuasive communication aimedat changing attitudes and intentions to speed would meet with more psychological resistance by male thanby female respondents and that the persuasive effects of the messages would be less evident for males thanfor females (Hypothesis 2).

1.4. Social communication

In social dilemmas, social communication provides persons with an insight into other road users’ attitudestowards a policy measure. In those cases where social communication lowers an individual’s expectationsabout the likely co-operation and contributions of others, it is to be expected that the individual will evaluatethe measure as less pleasant, efficient, social, etc. In the field of traffic research, findings of some studies high-light possible counterproductive effects of social communication (e.g. Steg, 1996). The second stage of thisresearch focused on the influence of group discussion on changes in attitude. Group discussions on new mea-sures tend to focus on their perceived effectiveness, justness and likeability, and consequently, we studied theeffect of group discussion on the developments in these variables.

2. Method

2.1. Recruitment and sample

A total of 400 invitation letters were sent to addresses of persons in possession of a valid drivers license. Ofthese 81 (45 male and 36 female) were elected and offered €50 in payment to participate in the study. The meanage of the participants was 51, which is higher than the average age of Dutch drivers which is 41 years. Com-paring levels of education, a higher proportion of respondents in the sample had received a higher education(70% versus 23% nationally). All respondents were residents of the suburban areas close to Den Hague city. Itcan be assumed that they, like the general Dutch driving population, had ample experience with driving onrural roads since rural roads cover nearly half the total road length in the Netherlands and nearly all trips fromcity to city include some part of rural road.

2.2. Design

The research consisted of two stages. In the first stage of the research, the differential effect of message typewas studied by randomly assigning participants to one of four experimental conditions (see Table 1): (C1)combination of neutrally toned leaflet and fear appeal anti-speeding tv-spot; (C2) leaflet only; (C3) fear appealanti-speeding tv-spot only and (C4) no leaflet and no tv-spot. The main effects and the interactive effects of thetwo types of persuasive communication and gender were studied on the basis of a 2 · 2 · 2 factorial post-testonly, between-subjects design. Gender, exposure to written communication on 60 km/h-zones (leaflet) and

C. Goldenbeld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 207–220 209


exposure to an anti-speeding fear appeal (tv-spot) were independent variables, and the indicators of accept-ability were dependent variables.

In the second stage, the additional effect of social communication (group discussion) on attitude change wasstudied. Since each separate group discussion constituted a unique, non-standardised experimental environ-ment for the participants, the results could not be studied with a standard factorial design and (M)ANOVAwhich require independence of observations. The second stage has a pre-test/post-test design, with two exper-imental conditions: written communication (CI) versus no communication (CII), whereas all participants wereexposed to the fear appeal message.

In order to combine research stages 1 and 2 it was convenient to use the post-test of stage 1 as the pre-test ofstage 2 (see Table 1). This caused a slight flaw in the second stage design, with about 50% of the total samplehaving seen the fear arousing spot after the pre-test of stage 2, while the other half had seen it before thepre-test of stage 2. As these participants were evenly spread over the ‘‘Written communication’’ and ‘‘No com-munication’’ conditions, with an equal proportion of male and female subjects (see again Table 1), thisimperfection is likely to have resulted in random error rather than in systematic bias.

2.3. Contents of communication

The neutrally written information was a 4-page leaflet on 60 km/h-zones and informed participants of theintroduction of a new 60 km/h-zone, providing information on the national road safety targets, the advanta-ges of 60 km/h-zones in terms of improved road safety and the quality of life. The general slogan of the leafletis: With 60.. you will live to be 80!

The television spot5 showed a pedestrian who absentmindedly crosses a 60 km/h street and then unexpect-edly is being hit by a car with the pedestrian’s body being propelled in the air. In the next instance, a traumasurgeon in an operating theatre explains about the damage to the human body. (His words: ‘‘The bumper hitsthe knee joint, tearing flesh and ligaments, the full weight of the skull smashes through the wind screen, theneck snaps, the skull shatters, and the pedestrian’s brain is turned into pulp. In little more than a second,the pedestrian’s body will hit the road, with a 70% chance of being dead’’). The surgeon then explains thatthe actual driving speed before the crash was 70 km/h resulting in a 15 m braking distance and that drivingwith 60 km/h limit would likely have prevented the crash (‘‘Had you been braking from sixty k’s not seventythere is a good chance you could have stopped in time and the pedestrian would have suffered nothing worsethan a severe fright. Think about it!’’).

Table 1Design of the first and second stage of the research

Stage 1: 2 · 2 · 2 factorial design post-test onlywith four experimental conditions (C1–C4)

Stage 2: group discussions with before–after measurementswith two experimental conditions (CI–CII)

Communicationconditions

Post-test = Pre-test Warming-up groupdiscussion followedby second groupdiscussion

Post-test

Writtencommunication60 km zone

Anti-speeding C1 = C1 3 groups CI

tv-spot N = 25 (14 male)No spot C2 = C2 3 groups N = 50

N = 25 (15 male)No communication Anti-speeding C3 = C3 2 groups CII

tv-spot N = 14 (7 male)No tv-spot C4 = C4 2 groups N = 30

N = 17 (10 male)

5 The television spot was devised by Gray Advertising, Victoria, in November 1999.



2.4. Questionnaires

At the start of the procedure, participants received a questionnaire containing questions on: (1) knowledgeabout 60 km/h-zones; (2) the clarity and persuasiveness of leaflet and tv-spot; (3) problem perception withregard to speeding inside and outside urban areas; (4) intentions to speed in 60 km/h-zones; (5) attitudestowards introduction of 60 km/h-zones; (6) self-reported speeding on motorways, main roads, rural roadsand roads inside urban areas; (7) general characteristics such as gender, age and education. Preceding thegroup discussions participants had to answer questions about 1–5 and following the group discussions thequestions about 5–7 after the group discussion on the introduction of 60 km/h-zones. The questions in cate-gory 5 were therefore administered twice. The wording and answer scales of the main variables are shown inTables 2–7.

2.5. Procedure

Participants were randomly allocated to separate groups of 6–8 persons, after which the groups were ran-domly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. The participants in the ‘‘Written communication’’condition (C1 + C2) received a written leaflet on 60 km/h-zones seven days before the experiment. In theaccompanying letter, participants were asked to read the leaflet before the experiment. Participants in the‘‘No communication’’ condition (C3 + C4) received no leaflet or accompanying letter.6

After the first welcome and explanation, the participants in the ‘‘Fear appeal’’-condition (C1 + C3) wereshown the fear appeal tv-spot, after which they completed the first part of the questionnaire (questionnaires1–5). The participants in the ‘‘No fear appeal’’-condition (C2 + C4), were shown the tv-spot after completionof this questionnaire.

In the second stage, initiated by the discussion leader, groups discussed safety issues in two rounds of dis-cussion of about 30 min each. In order to acclimatize the participants to the changed experimental setting, thefirst round on publicity campaigns in general, served as a ‘‘warming up’’. The second round focussed on theeffectiveness, justness and acceptability of 60 km/h zones, during which the discussion leader asked the groupto comment on the plan to implement 60 km/h zones on a large-scale. After this discussion the participantscompleted the last part of the questionnaire (questionnaires 5–7).

The discussion leader had to ensure that all persons participated in the discussion and to determine whethergroup members mutually agreed or diverged on certain topics. The discussion leaders were instructed to showneutrality on the topic.

2.6. Analyses

The first stage results (a 2 · 2 · 2 factorial design) were analysed by three MANOVAs to test the effects ofgender and the two types of communication on attitudes towards 60 km/h zones, intentions to comply withthe 60 km/h speed limit and problem perception about to speeding. In each MANOVA the between-subjectsfactors were gender, exposure to written communication on 60 km/h-zone, and exposure to anti-speeding fearappeal, with two levels each. Effects that were not significant but could be indicative of a tendency in theresults (p < .10) are also included in the results tables. In the tables both multivariate and univariate resultsare presented.

The second stage results were analysed by comparing the before and after scores in the two informationconditions (CI – leaflet versus CII – no leaflet) on six attitude-items using Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Thisis a conservative, non-parametric test that does not make assumptions about the distribution of the data. Sep-arate Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for male and female subjects in the ‘‘60 km/h communication’’-condition, and in the ‘‘No communication’’-condition.

6 Due to administrative error, nine participants who were originally assigned to the ‘‘Non-exposure’’ condition, nonetheless received theleaflet for the ‘‘Exposure’’ condition, causing a disproportionate number of participants in the ‘‘Exposure’’ condition. Despite thisdeviation from the procedure of randomisation, the selection due to error was random and we believe that the assumption of randomassignment can still be upheld.



Table 2Overview of results MANOVAs on attitude, problem perception, and intention to comply with the 60 km/h limit items

Effect Dependent variables

Attitudes 60 km/h zones Problem perception Intention

G Ns k(2,71) = 0.84; p = 0.002;g2 = 0.16

k(3,70) = 2.3; p = 0.084; g2 = 0.090

Univariate Univariate UnivariatePleasant: F(1,66) = 3.7,p = 0.057, g2 = 0.054

Speeding outside urbanareas:

Intent to speed when in a hurry and no speed checks:F(1,72) = 4.5, p = 0.038, g2 = 0.058

Effective: F(1,66) = 3.3,p = 0.074, g2 = 0.048

F(1,72)=10.5; p = 0.002,g2 = 0.128

Intent to speed when complying with limit takes 10 minlonger:

Wise: F(1,66) = 5.0,p = 0.028, g2 = 0.071

Speeding inside urban areas: F(1,72) = 4.3, p = 0.041, g2 = 0.057

Social: F(1,66) = 3.6,p = 0.060, g2 = 0.052

F(1,72) = 8.7; p = 0.004,g2 = 0.107

Intent to speed when others are speeding: F(1,72) = 4.9,p = 0.029, g2 = 0.064

Just F(1,66) = 3.0, p = 0.087,g2 = 0.044Necessary: F(1,66) = 6.4,p = 0.014, g2 = 0.088

C No significant effects multivariate or univariate effectsF Ns k(2,71) = 0.88; p = 0.009;

g2 = 0.12Ns

Ns Univariate: NsSpeeding inside urban areas:F(1,72) = 7.0; p = 0.010,g2 = 0.088Speeding outside urbanareas:F(1,72) = 7.8; p = 0.007,g2 = 0.098

G · C Ns Ns NsUnivariate (Table 4) Ns NsEffective: F(1,66) = 4.4,p = 0.039, g2 = 0.063Pleasant: F(1,66) = 3.3,p = 0.073, g2 = 0.048

G · F k(6,61) = 2.20; p = 0.054;g2 = 0.1k (Table 5)

k(2,71) = 2.8; p = 0.070;g2 = 0.072

Ns

Ns (Table 5) Univariate: (Table 6) NsSpeeding inside urban areas:F(1,72) = 3.9; p = 0.053,g2 = 0.072speeding outside urbanareas:F(1,72) = 4.2; p = 0.043,g2 = 0.056 (Table 6)

F · C k(6,61) = 1.9; p = 0.089;g2 = 0.16

Ns Ns

Univariate (Table 8) Ns NsEffective: F(1,66) = 5.6,p = 0.020, g2 = 0.079

G · F · C Ns Ns k(3,70) = 0.88; p = 0.028; g2 = 0.12 (Table 7)Ns Ns Intent speed when others faster: F(1,72) = 7.4,

p = 0.008, g2 = 0.093 (Table 7)

Multivariate and univariate effects of gender (G), exposure to written 60 km/h communication (C) and exposure to anti-speeding fearappeal (F) and interactions between gender and written communication (G · C), fear appeal and written communication (F · C), andgender and fear appeal (G · F), and between all three variables (S · C · F).



3. Results

3.1. Perceptions of materials

The subjects who had read the written communication about 60 kph zones (N = 50) rated this material onthree 7-point evaluative scales: boring–interesting, unconvincing–convincing and unclear–clear. The leafletwas evaluated by most subjects as clear (M = 5.8 on 7-point scale), to some lesser extent also as interesting(M = 5.2) and near to scale midpoint concerning convincingness (M = 4.2). The subjects who had seen thetelevision spot (N = 39) rated this spot on four 7-point evaluative scales: unclear–clear, unconvincing–con-vincing, not shocking–shocking, exaggerated–not exaggerated. Most subjects considered the television spotto be clear (M = 6.6 on 7-point scale), convincing (M = 6.0) and shocking (M = 6.0). Scores were somewhatmore to the midpoint of the scale, though still on the positive side regarding the extent to which the televisionspot was not exaggerated (M = 5.3).

3.2. Overview of main effects of different messages on acceptability (stage 1)

Table 2 provides an overview of results of MANOVAs and ANOVAs to test the effects of communicationand gender on acceptability of 60 km/h zones. Although all 81 subjects participated in the entire experiment,there were some incomplete responses to some questions in the questionnaire, and consequently, degrees offreedom in Table 2 and cell means in Tables 4–9 do not always match the total of 81 subjects.

In subsequent Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and 3.3, the results in Table 2 are described.

3.2.1. Main effects of gender

To test whether male and female drivers evaluated the communication messages differently, ANOVAs wereperformed with gender as independent variable and 7-point evaluative scales (described in Section 3.1) asdependent variables. Female participants assessed the written communication to be more convincing thanmale participants (F(1, 35) = 4.7; p = .038). Females perceived the fear appeal spot as more shocking thanmales (F(1, 36) = 11.1; p = .002) and also evaluated the tv-spot as more convincing (F(1,35) = 7.8; p = .058)than males.

In comparison to males, females reported to speed less frequently on main roads (F(1, 78) = 6.3; p = .014;g2 = .07) and on roads in urban areas (F(1, 78) = 6.4; p = .013; g2 = .08). In addition to a non-significant ten-dency for females to report less frequent speeding on motorways (F(1,78) = 2.8; p = .095), females also ratedthe introduction of 60 km/h zones as wiser and more necessary than did males (F(1,66) = 5.0, p = .028,g2 = .071; F(1, 66) = 6.4, p = .014, g2 = .088). Furthermore, females judged speeding inside and outside urbanareas as more dangerous than males (F(1,72) = 8.7; p = .004, g2 = .107; F(1,72) = 10.5; p = .002, g2 = .128),and reported stronger intentions to comply with the 60 km/h speed limit on all three intention-statements(F(1, 72) = 4.5, p = 0.038, g2 = .058; F(1,72) = 4.3, p = .041, g2 = .057; F(1, 72) = 4.9, p = .029, g2 = .064).

To explore whether problem perception of speeding was related to self-reported speeding we studied cor-relations between these questions (see Table 3).

Table 3Pearson correlations between problem perception of speeding inside and outside urban areas and self-reported speeding, for males andfemales (positive correlation indicating that high problem perception tends to be associated with low frequency of speeding)

Self-reportedspeeding

Females (N = 36) Males (N = 44)

Problem perceptionspeeding inside urbanareas

Problem perceptionspeeding outside urbanareas

Problem perceptionspeeding inside urbanareas

Problem perceptionspeeding outside urbanareas

In urban areas 0.293; p = 0.056 0.263; p = 0.089 0.350; p = 0.036 0.359; p = 0.032On main roads

between cities0.157; p = 0.315 0.216; p = 0.165 0.403; p = 0.015 0.407; p = 0.014

On motorways 0.068; p = 0.667 0.218; p = 0.161 0.288; p = 0.089 0.447; p = 0.006



As can be seen in Table 3, for males, a higher problem perception regarding speeding inside urban areas waspositively correlated with less self-reported speeding on roads inside urban areas (Pearson correlation = .36,p = .032), on motorways (Pearson correlation = .45, p = .006) and on main roads between cities (Pearson cor-relation = .41, p = .014). Also, for males higher problem perception regarding speeding outside urban areaswas positively correlated with less self-reported speeding on main roads between cities (Pearson correla-tion = .40, p = .015) and roads inside urban areas (Pearson correlation = .35, p = .036). In contrast, for malesnone of these correlations were significant.

3.2.2. Main effects of type of communication

A check on the written communication manipulation indicated that, as expected, participants in the ‘‘Writ-ten communication’’-condition had a significantly higher knowledge score (M = 3.7) than participants in the‘‘No communication’’-condition (M = 2.5) (F(1,77) = 52.1; p = .00, g2 = .40). The effect size measure corre-sponding to this effect, the partial eta squared (g2), is .40. Cohen (1988) characterizes g2 = .01 as small,g2 = .06 as medium, and g2 = .14 as a large effect size.

As indicated in Table 2, there were no multivariate or univariate significant main effects of exposure to writ-ten communication on attitude, problem perception or on the intentions to comply with the speed limit.

No hypothesis was formulated concerning the direction of the effects of the fear appeal spot. The fearappeal factor had no main effects on attitudes or intentions. The main effect of the anti-speeding fear appealon problem perception was significant at the multivariate level (Wilks’ k(2,71) = .88; p = .009; partialg2 = .12) as well as at the univariate level (F(1, 72) = 7.0; p = .010, g2 = 0.088; F(1, 72) = 7.8; p = .007,g2 = .098). Participants in the ‘‘Fear appeal’’-condition reported a lower problem perception of other drivers’speeding inside and outside urban areas (M = 4.1, respectively M = 3.6) than participants in the ‘‘No fearappeal’’-condition (M = 4.6; M = 4.3).

3.3. Interaction effects

3.3.1. Interactions between gender and type of communication on acceptabilityThe interactions between gender and communication are relevant for the hypothesis that persuasive effects

would be less evident for males than for females (Hypothesis 2).With respect to the interaction between gender and written communication no significant results were

found for problem perception or intentions. With respect to attitudes, the interaction was significant forthe effectiveness-item (F(1,66) = 4.4, p = .039, g2 = .063) and suggested a tendency for the pleasantness-item(F(1,66) = 3.3, p = .073, g2 = .048). The male and female respondents in the ‘‘Written communication’’ con-dition had near equal ratings of how effective and pleasant the introduction of 60 km/h-zone would be (Table4). In the ‘‘No communication’’-condition, males rated 60 km/h zones as less pleasant and effective thanfemales. A comparison between the two communication conditions indicates that, compared to an uninformedsame-gender control group, informed males tended to rate 60 km/h zones as more pleasant and effective andinformed females tended to rate 60 km/h zones as less pleasant and effective.

No significant effects for the interaction between gender and fear appeal were found on intentions, and onlya possible tendency of effect was found on attitudes and problem perception. The MANOVA on attitude-itemsindicated a nearly significant interaction between gender and fear appeal (k(6,61) = 2.20; p = .054; g2 = .18).

Table 4Attitude ratings concerning 60 km/h zones (pleasant, effective), according to gender and exposure to 60 km/h communication

No communication (N = 27) Written communication (N = 47)

Male (N = 15) Female (N = 12) Sign Male (N = 27) Female (N = 20) Sign

Attitude scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Not pleasant–pleasant 3.1 1.9 4.8 2.1 0.013 3.9 1.8 3.9 1.9 0.455Not effective–effective 3.4 1.6 4.7 1.9 0.030 4.5 1.5 4.3 1.7 0.352

Sign = significance of one-sided t-test, for male–female differences within cell.On both scales scores range from 1 to 7 with higher score indicating more positive attitude.



Since no particular univariate results were found for any particular attitude-item we inspected the pattern ofcell means for all attitude-items.

As can be seen in Table 5, male and female respondents in the ‘‘No fear appeal’’- condition did not differmuch on five of the six attitude ratings, the exception being the ‘‘necessary’’ item. In the ‘‘Fear appeal’’-con-dition, there were significant gender differences on three items. In the ‘‘Fear appeal’’-condition, female respon-dents tended to rate 60 km/h zones more positively on all attitude-items, whereas male respondents tended toshow lower ratings on half of the items (pleasurable, effective, wise) and higher ratings on other items (social,just, necessary). Thus, for females the anti-speeding fear appeal spot seemed to have worked in one overallpositive direction whereas for males a more capricious pattern of change was found.

Though not significant (Wilks’ k(2,71) = 0.92; p = .070; g2 = .07), the effect of the interaction between gen-der and fear appeal clarifies the main effects reported in Section 3.2.2.

As can be seen in Table 6, male and female respondents rated the problem perception with regard to speed-ing inside and outside urban areas about equally high in the ‘‘No fear appeal’’ condition. In the ‘‘Fear appeal’’condition, males rated the danger caused by speeding inside and outside urban areas less high than females.Under the influence of an anti-speeding fear appeal, males in particular downsized the problem of speeding.This finding supports the hypothesis that anti-speeding persuasive effects of communication would meet withmore resistance by males, and that (positive) persuasive effects would be less evident for males than for females.

The last interaction between gender and communication relates to the effect of the three-way interactionbetween gender, written communication and fear appeal. This interaction was significant for intentions tocomply with the 60 km/h limit (k(3,70) = .88; p = .028; g2 = .12), but not for attitudes or problem perception.On the univariate level, the effect of the three-way interaction on one intention-statement is significantF(1, 72) = 7.4, p = .008, g2 = .093. As can be seen in Table 7, the intentions of male and female drivers to com-ply with the 60 km/h speed limit when others are violating it, were not significantly different in three of thefour communication conditions with the exception of the ‘‘Fear appeal without written communication’’-con-dition. In this particular condition, males reported the weakest intention to comply with the limit and femalesthe strongest. It can also be seen that for the two other intention-items, this pattern of results is repeated, withthe strongest gender difference arising in the condition of fear appeal without written communication, with

Table 5Attitude ratings concerning 60 km/h zones, according to gender and exposure to fear appeal

No fear appeal (N = 39) Fear appeal (N = 35)


Attitude scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Not pleasant–pleasant 3.8 2.0 3.7 2.1 0.443 3.4 1.6 4.9 1.8 0.005Not effective–effective 4.3 1.8 4.2 1.6 0.492 3.9 1.4 4.6 1.9 0.094Stupid–wise 4.7 1.7 5.0 1.3 0.272 4.3 1.4 5.5 1.3 0.008Asocial–social 4.2 1.6 4.9 1.2 0.069 4.9 1.3 5.3 1.4 0.215Unjust–just 4.4 1.4 4.8 1.4 0.169 4.8 1.4 5.4 1.3 0.081Unnecessary–necessary 3.8 1.8 5.1 1.7 0.017 4.7 1.7 5.6 1.4 0.048

Sign = significance of one-sided t-test, for male–female differences within cell.On both scales scores range from 1 to 7 with higher score indicating more positive attitude.

Table 6Problem perception concerning speeding, according to gender and fear appeal conditions

Item Fear appeal Male (N = 44) Female (N = 36) Sign

N Mean SD N Mean SD

I consider it dangerous when others speed within urban areas Yes 20 3.7 1.3 19 1.6 0.6 0.007No 24 4.5 0.9 17 4.7 0.5 0.193

I consider it dangerous when others speed outside urban areas Yes 20 3.1 1.3 19 4.2 1.2 0.000No 24 4.2 1.1 17 4.5 0.5 0.154

Sign = significance of one-sided t-test, for male–female differences within cell.The higher the score on the 5-point scale, the more agreement with perception of danger.



males reporting less intentions to comply and females stronger intentions to comply. This finding can be seenas (partial) support for Hypothesis 2 that persuasive effects would be less evident for males.

3.3.2. Interactions between types of communication

This study formulated no hypothesis as to how a possible interaction between both types of communicationwould have an effect on each of the three acceptability indicators. The effect of the two-way interactionbetween exposure to written communication and exposure to anti-speeding fear indicated a possible tendency(with large effect size) on the multivariate level (k(6,61) = 1.9; p = .089; g2 = .16) and a significant effect for theeffectiveness rating at the univariate level (F(1,66) = 5.6, p = .020, g2 = .079). Table 8 presents cell means forthe effectiveness rating, for the conditions of communication separately.

Table 8 indicates that 60 km/zones were rated as least effective in the ‘‘No communication – No fearappeal’’-condition, and as most effective in either the ‘‘Written communication – No fear appeal’’-conditionor the ‘‘No communication-Fear appeal’’-condition. Another way to phrase it is that each type of communi-cation achieved a more positive effect on attitude when it was not combined with the other type. Apparently,the two strategies of communication did not strengthen or reinforce each other.

The three-way interaction between gender, exposure to written communication and exposure to fear appealindicates one possible way that the different types of communication may have interacted. It seems that, atleast for males, the negative effects of anti-speeding fear appeals were foremost present when they had notreceived written communication about 60 km/h zones.

3.4. Change in attitudes following group discussion (stage 2)

For males and females in either the ‘‘Written communication (CI)’’ or ‘‘No communication (CII)’’ condi-tion, non-parametric Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to test before–after changes in attitudes towards60 km/h zones (Table 9).

Table 8Attitude ratings of effectiveness of 60 km/h zones, according to the four conditions of exposure to persuasive communication (higherscores indicating more effective)

Written communication (N = 47) No communication (N = 27)

Mean SD Mean SD

Fear appeal (N = 35) 4.1 1.7 4.6 1.7No fear appeal (N = 39) 4.7 1.4 3.5 1.9

Table 7Intentions to violate 60 km/h-limit, according to gender, exposure to fear appeal and to written communication

Item No fear appeal (N = 41) Fear appeal (N = 39)


Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

No communication Q1 2.7 1.3 2.0 1.0 0.143 3.0 1.4 1.7 0.7 0.027Q2 2.8 1.4 2.4 0.8 0.282 2.7 1.1 1.6 0.8 0.031Q3 2.8 1.4 3.1 0.7 0.269 3.3 .7 1.6 0.8 0.023

Written communication Q1 2.3 1.0 2.7 0.9 0.139 2.9 0.8 2.4 1.1 0.093Q2 2.3 1.0 2.2 0.9 0.432 2.5 0.9 2.2 0.7 0.185Q3 2.8 1.0 2.2 1.1 0.090 2.4 1.0 2.2 1.0 0.365

Sign = significance of one-sided t-test, for male–female differences within cell.(Q1) When you drive your car into a 60 km/h-h zone and you are in a hurry, will you comply with the speed limit if you know that yourspeed will not be checked?(Q2) When you drive your car into a 60 km/h-zone and you are in a hurry, will you comply with the speed limit if you know that a drive ofabout 30 min will take you 10 min longer?(Q3) When you drive your car into a 60 km/h-zone and you are in a hurry, will you comply with the speed limit if you notice that other

drivers are violating the limit.The higher the score on the 5-point scale, the lesser the intention to comply with the speed limit.



As can be seen in Table 9, the majority of changes (significant and non-significant) on attitude-items was ina negative direction. The pattern of changes differed between males and females. Female participants in the‘‘Written communication’’-condition showed no significant change following group discussion on any ofthe attitude-items whereas female participants in the ‘‘No communication’’ condition showed significant ornearly significant negative changes on 5 of the 6 items. Clearly, for female participants the tendency of socialcommunication leading to negative changes in attitudes towards 60 km/h zones, was effectively counteractedby exposure to the 60 km/h-zone communication. Male participants changed in a negative direction on 3 outof 6 attitude-items in the ‘‘Written communication’’-condition and on only 1 item in the ‘‘No communica-tion’’-condition, indicating that the information was not effective or even counterproductive.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the effects of different types of persuasive communication on the acceptabil-ity of speed reducing measures, and the additional effects of groups discussions. The following study limita-tions need to be taken into account when considering the main findings.

Use was made of existing communication materials rather than specially developed materials or formatsaccording to theoretical guidelines. It is not clear whether the results obtained with the present communicationtypes would have been obtained with other, possibly better crafted materials. The leaflet was perceived bymost respondents to be clear, but it scored less good in terms of convincingness. The spot was perceived bymost subjects to be clear, convincing, and shocking indicating that it may have two important componentsof a fear appeal, some level of fear, and at least some minimum level of message efficacy. However, we didnot measure separately the response efficacy (does message provide effective coping strategy?) and self-efficacy(can viewer perform coping strategy?) of the message which are thought to be in understanding the effective-ness of a fear appeal (Tay & Watson, 2002).

A second limitation concerns the generalizability of results. In the present sample, car drivers of middle ageand higher levels of education were over-represented and all drivers were residents of suburban areas. It is notcertain whether a sample of younger or less educated drivers, or drivers in rural areas, would have yieldedsimilar results.

In summary, the first stage of the research found mixed support for both hypotheses, resulting from thedifferent reactions of males and females to the types of persuasive messages. The first hypothesis that writtencommunication would have a positive effect on attitudes but not on intentions, was only supported by theresults for the male respondents (who reported more positive attitudes towards 60 km/h zones when theyhad read the written communication, but did not indicate stronger intentions to comply with the 60 km/h

Table 9Changes in attitudes towards introduction of 60 km/h zones after group discussion, according to gender and exposure to writtencommunication (higher scores indicating more positive attitude rating)

Exposure to written communication Scale Female (N = 36) Male (N = 44)

Mean before Mean after Sign Before After Sign

Written communication Yes (N = 50) Not pleasant–pleasant 3.9 3.8 0.659 3.9 3.2 0.037Not effective–effective 4.3 4.8 0.136 4.5 3.5 0.006Stupid–smart 5.3 5.4 1.0 4.7 3.7 0.051Not social–social 5.1 5.2 0.855 4.8 4.5 0.194Unjust–just 5.1 5.0 0.435 4.7 4.5 0.499Unnecessary–necessary 5.3 5.4 0.662 4.5 4.2 0.326

No communication (N = 30) Not pleasant–pleasant 4.8 3.0 0.031 3.1 2.3 0.223Not effective–effective 4.7 3.3 0.057 3.4 3.5 0.888Stupid–smart 5.2 4.0 0.019 4.3 3.7 0.147Not social–social 5.1 4.6 0.129 4.1 3.7 0.204Unjust–just 5.1 4.3 0.072 4.4 4.0 0.047Unnecessary–necessary 5.4 3.4 0.005 3.7 3.9 0.872

Sign = Significance Wilcoxon signed rank test.



limit). For females, written communication produced less positive attitudes, but did not influence intentions tocomply with the 60 km/h limit. Since written communication did not influence problem perception at all andonly produced more positive attitudes for males but not for females, the results concerning this type of com-munication did not support the second hypothesis that persuasive effects would be less evident for males thanfor females.

In contrast to the results for written communication, the results concerning the fear appeal were consis-tently in line with the second hypothesis. On all three acceptability indicators, the anti-speeding fear appealhad positive or neutral effects for females but only negative effects for males. In a nutshell, the fear appealseemed to polarize male and female reactions to the introduction of 60 km/h zones. Let us recall the findingsthat support this. Firstly, concerning problem perception, males and females who had not seen the anti-speed-ing fear appeal spot, did not differ. However, when males and females had seen the spot, males had a signif-icantly lower problem perception than females. Secondly, the anti-speeding fear appeal showed a less positiveeffect on the attitudes of males, with positive change on some of the attitude-items but not others, whereas theeffect on attitudes was consistently positive for females. Finally, as revealed by the complex interactionbetween gender, fear appeal and written communication, females tended to report the strongest intentionsto comply with the speed limit when they had seen the fear appeal without having had any prior communi-cation, but males tended to report the weakest intentions.

A final result of the first research stage concerned the possible interaction between the two types of persuasivecommunication. Although both types of communication dealt with the safety effects of speeding (in particularviolating a 60 km/h limit), the diverging types of communication did not reinforce one another but rathertended to counteract or oppose each other. The positive effects on attitudes of each type of persuasive commu-nication were largest when used in isolation. For males the negative effects of anti-speeding fear appeals on atti-tudes and intentions were primarily present when they had not received a written communication about 60 km/h zones. Apparently, for males neutrally toned, argument-based communication counteracted negative,unwanted effects from a fear appeal approach that tended to evoke negative reactions.

In the second stage of the present research, social communication took place in discussion groups on theadvisability of 60 km/h zones. This provided us with the opportunity to study additional effects of group dis-cussion over and above the other communication. This part of the research showed two main findings. First,attitudes towards 60 km/h zones tended to become more negative after group discussion. Second, for females,the neutrally toned, informative written communication countered this effect. Although written communica-tion had no significant main effects on any of the three acceptability indicators and no effects at all on problemperception of speeding, it seems to have counteracted the negative attitude shift arising from group discussionsfor females, as well as reduced the counterproductive influence of the fear appeal for males.

What are the possible implications of the present research for planning and designing road safety commu-nications and for future research in this area? The research certainly calls into question the effectiveness of veryconfronting fear appeals in the anti-speeding area. Other research on road safety campaigns has indicated thatfear appeals may fail to reach and influence the most relevant target audience for which they were explicitlydeveloped (e.g. Tay & Ozanne, 2002). The present research points out that males and females may differ in theway they react to anti-speeding fear appeal type approaches. In the present study, the use of an anti-speedingfear appeal influenced female drivers in a positive direction but male drivers in a negative direction, contraryto the desired effects of persuasion, resulting in less positive attitudes regarding 60 km/h zones, lesser problemperception of speeding and weaker intentions to comply with the 60 km/h speed limit.

One other recent study has pointed out similar gender effects with respect to reactions to road advertise-ments using fear appeals (or physical threats). Lewis, Watson, and Tay (2007) found that road safety messagesabout speeding and drink driving were regarded less relevant and influential by males than females. In thesame study, males reported significantly less desirable speeding and drink driving intentions after viewingthe road safety advertisement than females. Thus, it seems that gender is an important factor influencingthe manner in which individuals process the relevance of an persuasive message using fear or threat.

The counterproductive responses to anti-speeding fear appeal of male drivers in this research is a possibleoutcome of a social dilemma type situation where persons feel pressed to make a choice between personal pref-erences and social demands. One illustration of such a counterproductive response is provided by researchby Steg (1996) that showed a decrease in problem perception after persons discussed the desirability of a



reduction of private car use in groups. In general, if persons are pressed to make a choice between own pref-erences and social demands, one possible outcome is that persons ‘‘retreat’’ from the direction of persuasionand show defensive, self-justificatory responses. In the present research, it might be argued that a defensive,self-justificatory response is apparent in the absent relationship between problem perception of speedingand self-reported speed behaviour for males. Whereas for females higher problem perception of speedingwas associated with less self-reported speeding, for males no such relationship was found. One interpretationof this finding is that male drivers dissociate their own speeding behaviour from a social problem which can beinterpreted as one type of self-justificatory response.

In a social dilemma-like situation, safety campaigns that demand a drastic change in behaviour from driv-ers who feel personally confronted or even stigmatised by the message, can fail to produce expected results oreven produce counterproductive results. This is especially the case when drivers notice that others are equallyunwilling to conform to the norms or standards encouraged by the campaign. This particular dynamic mayexplain the negative attitude shifts arising from the group discussions. During the group discussions aboutthe 60 km/h zones some persons indeed voiced personal doubts or criticisms about the desirability or effective-ness of 60 km/h zones. Other discussion participants who might have been less critical may have concludedthat the general line of thought on the matter was rather negative and may have adjusted their attitudestowards the perceived group norm.

There is no easy solution to the above mentioned negative dynamic. Campaign developers should considerto engage the relevant target group in a less confronting, choice-demanding way. In the specific area of anti-speeding campaigns this could be done by asking for a small or specific contribution to a larger problem (e.g.speed reduction near schools, intersections, etc.) rather than a sudden large contribution (e.g. keeping the limitat all times and places, changing general driving style).

One aim of road safety communication is to place collective problems on the public agenda and to raisepublic awareness. In our research, participants who had participated in group discussions and discussedadvantages and disadvantages of 60 km/h zones tended to change their attitudes towards the introductionof these in a negative direction. The present research findings draw attention to the fact that as a result ofsocial interaction, public awareness campaigns may (temporarily) lead to a decrease in the acceptance of a pol-icy measure. As suggested before, a false-consensus effect may play a crucial role in this. The shift towardslower acceptability corresponds with observations in a field study. When the city council of Graz announcedits intention to introduce a city-wide 30 km/h limit, the ensuing social communication about the future mea-sure (which was not implemented yet) resulted in a reduction in acceptance from 64% (measured by a survey in1989) to 44% (measured in August 1992) (Sammer, 1994).

If social communication is likely to lead to criticism and a trend towards negative thinking about roadsafety measures, what can be done to reverse this trend? As shown, neutrally written communication couldcounteract negative attitude shifts arising from group discussions, at least among female divers. It is advisableto use fear appeals with great care as the possible defensive, self-justificatory responses resulting from this typeof communication may fuel the negative opinions in the public debate. However, the highest impact is to beexpected from the actual experiences with the measure. If these experiences are positive, the acceptability willincrease, as was illustrated by the experience with introduction of 30 km/h zones in Graz. Despite the initialrejection, the actual implementation of these zones eventually led to a majority support. Consequently, inplanning comprehensive programmes of traffic safety measures, authorities would do well to plan measuresthat will provide positive experiences (such as more driving comfort) in the beginning or in the middle ofthe programme.

Finally, we conclude that fundamental and applied communication research can achieve a more realisticunderstanding of potential message or campaign effectiveness by studying the interaction between media expo-sure and social communication. Our findings suggest that persuasive impacts of messages can be assessed dif-ferently, dependent upon different target groups (in this research male versus female drivers) and upon theevaluation criterion (in the present context: first time exposure versus persistency of effect after group discus-sion). The method used in the present research – combining experimental design with group discussions andstudying different types of measures – supplemented with more refined theoretical work on cognitive disso-nance or self-justification processes (e.g. Holland, Meertens, & Van Vugt, 2002; Van Raaij, 2002) can providea promising approach in this direction.



References

Bamberg, S., & Rolle, D. (2002). Determinants of people’s acceptability of pricing measures: Replication and extension of a causal model.In B. Schlag & J. Schade (Eds.), Acceptability of transport pricing strategies (pp. 235–265). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Cauzard, J., & Quimby, A. (2000). Individual differences in attitudes to enforcement of traffic regulations. Working Paper 8 Workpackage5. ESCAPE. Contract RO-98-RS.3047. Espoo: VTT. http://www.vtt.fi/rte/projects/escape/escape_wp8.pdf.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Das, E. H. H. J. (2001). How fear appeals work. Motivational biases in the processing of fear-arousing health communications. Utrecht:

University of Utrecht.De Vries, N., Ruiter, R., & Leegwater, Y. (2002). Fear appeals in persuasive communication. In G. Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.),

Marketing for sustainability. Towards transactional policy-making (pp. 96–104). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Feenstra, W., & Gotz, N. (2002). 30 km, ook voor ons! Evaluatie campagne 30 km gebieden van de gemeente Soest. TT-02-6. Veenendaal:

Traffic Test.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesly.Holland, R., Meertens, R., & Van Vugt, M. (2002). Self-justification among car drivers: Processes that undermine policy measures. In G.

Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.), Marketing for sustainability. Towards transactional policy-making (pp. 334–342). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Ittner, H., Becker, R., & Kals, E. (2003). Willingness to support traffic policy measures: The role of justice. In J. Schade & B. Schlag (Eds.),

Acceptability of transport pricing strategies (pp. 249–265). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Klandermans, B. (1992). Persuasive communication: Measures to overcome real-life social dilemmas. In W. B. G. Liebrand, D. M.

Messick, & H. A. M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 307–318). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Laapotti, S., Keskinen, E., & Rajalin, S. (2003). Comparison of young male and female drivers’ attitude and self-reported traffic behaviour

in Finland in 1978 and 2001. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 579–587.Lewis, I., Watson, B., & Tay, R. (2007). Examining the effectiveness of physical threats in road safety advertising: The role of the third-

person effect, gender, and age. Transportation Research Part F, 10, 48–60.Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals.

Psychology and Health, 16, 613–630.Sammer, G. (1994). General 30 kph speed limit in the city. The results of a model project in the city of Graz. In A. S. Hakkert (Ed.),

Proceedings of the third international conference on safety and the environment in the 21st century: Lessons from the past, shaping the

future, Tel Aviv, Israel, November 7–10, 1994 (pp. 598–608). Haifa: Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Transportation ResearchInstitute.

Social Issuers Research Centre (2004). Sex differences in driving and insurance risk. Oxford: SIRC.Stead, M., MacKintosh, A. M., Tagg, S., & Eadie, D. (2002). Changing speeding behaviour in Scotland: An evaluation of the ‘Foolsspeed’

campaign. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.Steg, E. M. (1996). Behaviour change for reducing the use of motor-cars. Theoretical analysis and empirical study on problem awareness,

willingness-to-change and evaluation of policy measures. Doctoral Thesis in Dutch, with extensive English summary. Groningen: Facultyof Psychological, Pedagogical, and Sociological Sciences, University of Groningen.

Steg, L. (2003). Factors influencing the acceptability and effectiveness of transport pricing. In J. Schade & B. Schlag (Eds.), Acceptability of

transport pricing strategies (pp. 187–202). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Publishers.Tay, R., & Ozanne, L. (2002). Who are we scaring with high fear road safety campaigns? Asia Pacific Journal of Transport, 4, 1–12.Tay, R., & Watson, B. (2002). Changing drivers’ intentions and behaviours using fear-based driver fatigue advertisements. Health

Marketing Quarterly, 19, 55–68.Van Raaij, W. F. (2002). Stages of behavioural change: Motivation, ability and opportunity. In G. Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.),

Marketing for sustainability. Towards transactional policy-making (pp. 321–333). Amsterdam: IOS Press.


effects of persuasive communication and group discussions

Automotive