CRICOS No. 00213J

1. What do we currently know about designing & evaluating road safety advertising? Presented By Dr Ioni Lewis Acknowledgements: Prof. Barry Watson & A/Prof. Katherine White CRICOS No. 00213J

2. 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

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

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

5. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

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

7. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

8. 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

9. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

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

11. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

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

13. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

14. 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 outcomes Individual responses Message-related factors

15. 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

16. 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”

17. 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