Running head: EFFECTIVNESS OF ADVERTISMENT FOR SPEEDING BEHAVIOURS

A Review of the Effectiveness of Advertisement Campaign as a countermeasure for preventing Speeding Behaviours in Drivers

Name: Mylinh Huynh
Student number: n8910481
Unit Name: Traffic Psychology
Word Count: 3488

Abstract
This essay discusses about the theoretical and empirical evidence relating to the effectiveness of advertisement as a countermeasure for speeding. The results of the review highlight the mixed and inconsistent findings that have been reported in the literature. While fear arousal appears important for attracting attention, its contribution to behaviour change appears less critical than other factors, such as perceptions of vulnerability and effective coping strategies. Furthermore, physical threat appeals such as death or portraying physical harm is less effective for males then females. Consequently, further research is required to determine the optimum way to utilise advertisement as a countermeasure for speeding.

A Review of the Effectiveness of Advertisement Campaign as a countermeasure for preventing Speeding Behaviours in Drivers Most traffic accidents are caused by dangerous driving habits attained and carried out by drivers. Risky driver behaviours such as speeding and drink driving represent one of the leading causes to road trauma (Boyle, 1984). One of the most prevalent factors contributing to Australia's road death accidents is speeding. According to New South Wales statistical statement about 40% of drivers believed that speeding is the main case to road traumas. (Road Traffic crashes New South Wales, 2011)
For many drivers, following the speed limit can be a problem at some point in time. There's always people running late for appointments, rebellious teen drivers, and fast sports cars who think they have the right to go faster than what the law prohibits (Cameron & Newstead, 2000). Speeding is a customary way for drivers to break the law. However breaking the law usually leads to unpleasant consequences, (Rossiter & Thornton, 2004) for example some drivers may end up with a minor speeding citation, others may lose their license due to points for multiple speeding tickets, however those who excessively speed all the time could land in jail for street racing, or even worse, injure or kill an innocent victim or themselves. All these accidents can be easily avoided if drivers are aware of the dangers speeding behaviours represent to them and other people. Whilst there are many evidence in the literature that road safety countermeasures, such as speed cameras and speeding fines are effective in reducing speeding behaviours, mass media advertising plays an important role in addressing the effects of the behaviour. Firstly, mass media advertising can be used to maximise the deterrent effects produced from countermeasures by heightening the audience’s perceived risk (Dillard, 1994). Secondly, mass media advertising can work independently to persuade audiences not to speed and thus adopt safer behaviour. Thus, the main aim of this essay is to examine the role that advertisement plays in improving driver’s speeding behaviours. The essay begins by highlighting the concept and theoretical framework in advertisement persuasion, then goes on to the findings and limitations of research studies relevant to the road safety advertising context. Lastly it presents a comparison about the ideas and concept of speeding from an external personal and assumptions and research about speeding behaviour.
Theory
Of the approaches utilised in road safety advertisement, “fear provoking” advertisement is one of the most dominant. Fear provoking advertisement presents individuals with the negative outcomes that they may experience as a result of engaging in speeding (Burnett & Oliver, 1979). It is expected that the advertisement will evoke fear when viewing the perceived outcomes, which will in turn motivate the audience to align their behaviours with those recommended in the message. Typically, these “fear provoking” advertisements portray fear in which drivers and passengers are often shown to be injured and killed as a result of speeding. (Boyle, 1984)
One theory that explains the concept of fear persuasion in road safety advertising is Drive theory. Drive theory is based on the principle that “people are motivated to take certain actions in order to reduce the tension that is created when needs are not satisfied” (Witte, 1994). For example a man always speeds; however once he watches a fearful road safety advertisement he then becomes afraid. To reduce the tension cause by fear he is motivated not to speed. Thus the theory suggests that fear appeal would evoke fear arousal and that fear, in turn, would act as a drive to motivate action (Witte & Allen, 2000). Positive linear relationship between fear and persuasion are supported by drive theory. Studies by Champness provided support that higher levels of fear were most conducive to persuasive attempts (Champness, 2001). However, in contrast studies by Lewis provided evidence of a negative, linear relationship such that decreasing levels of fear resulted in more persuasion (Lewis, 2002). Consequently, the curvilinear relationship was proposed as a means of reconciling the inconsistent findings (Rossiter & Thornton 2004).This view suggested that higher levels of fear enhance persuasion up until some critical point; however, once this critical point is exceeded the level of fear becomes too great and defensive avoidance reactions are likely to result, thus rejection of the message is more likely to occur (Champness, 2001). This indicates that fear is positively associated with both message acceptance and message rejection.
Given that fear is proposed to be positively associated with both acceptance and rejection of the message, reaching the optimal point to where fear has not yet been exceeded to the rejection part of the message would be most effective for maximising the deterrent effect in advertisement for speeding. One model that demonstrates this concept is the Parallel Response Model. The Parallel Response Model proposed that there were two separate paths to persuasion: an emotional ‘fear control response’ and a cognitive ‘danger control response’ (Das & Stoebe, 2003). Of the two paths, the cognitive response, by controlling the fear of dangerous outcomes presented in the advert, is more likely to promote protective behaviour thus adapting to what the advertisement message recommends, as opposed to the emotional response which involves controlling the fear by either maladaptive means, thus tends to reject the message. However, the model fails to specify the circumstances under which fear control responses would be initiated (Witte & Allen, 2000).
The Protection Motivation Theory developed by Rogers, correct the previous problem by presenting four variables that function to facilitate one of two cognitive paths in adapting to the message in seeping advertisement: the perceived severity of the message and the perceived vulnerability that the message will occur are regarded as the threat appraisal, whilst the perceived efficacy of the recommended response and the perceived efficacy of individuals to enact the recommended response is regarded as the coping appraisal (Maddux & Rogers, 1983). According to Witte, message acceptance is a function of the level of protection motivation produced by the two appraisals; whereby the relationship between variables within each respective appraisal is considered additive whilst the relationship between the two appraisals is considered multiplicative” (Witte, 1994) For instance, high perceptions of both efficacy and threat produce the most protection motivation and subsequently, the most message acceptance. The model has been extensively utilised and tested however (Dejong& Atkin, 1995), whilst the model has been regarded a sound approach to explaining how and when the messages in speeding advert are accepted, it has been criticised for not providing explanation as to how and why they may fail. Consequently, Witte developed the Extended Parallel Process Model as a framework to explain not only when threat appeals are successful but also why they fail. EPPM incorporates the parallel process model posited by Leventhal’s and the concept of protection motivation theory posited from Rogers’s. Specifically, the EPPM posits that an individual’s response to a potentially threatening message involves two distinct appraisals (Leventhals, 1987). The first appraisal relates to the degree to which the message is perceived as being threatening. If the individual perceives that they are personally vulnerable to the message, a second coping appraisal occurs. In other words, the extent to which they fear the message, determines whether they are motivated to continue processing the message. Consecutively, the coping appraisal may initiate a danger control (cognitive) process, a fear control (emotional) process, or ignoring of a message (Dillard, & 2000). More specifically, if the threat is perceived as high (eg: perceptions of personal vulnerability and threat severity of the message are high) then there is greater motivation to adopt the message. Alternatively, if the threat is perceived as high but perceptions of efficacy are low (eg: individuals do not believe that they could successfully enact the strategies), then emotional processing occurs whereby an individual will aim to control their fear through maladaptive strategies such as avoiding the message. The final outcome possible in the EPPM is where individuals simply ignore the message. This outcome is likely to occur in instances where individuals’ perceptions of a threat are low because it is regarded as irrelevant. As a result, there is no motivation for continuing with any processing of the message. Overall, fear in the EPPM is important for motivating further processing of a message which includes functioning to attain interest in a message (Witte, 1992). This in turns supports the concept that fear is vital in maximising the deterrent effect in speeding advertisement.
In contrast, Donovan (Donovan, 1999) studies were inconsistent to the above research. He examined the reported intentions of a sample of shoppers after being exposed to a range of different advertisement types for risky driving behaviours. The study sought to determine whether the fearful, graphic threat appeals, were more effective than their relatively less threatening such as testimony.
Overall, Donovan concluded that there was no consistent evidence to suggest that the fearful threat appeals were the most effective: some high threat appeals performed well whilst others, did not perform as well as their less threatening advertising addressing the same behaviour (Donovan, 1999).
This finding is consistence with latest research suggesting that increasing perceptions of severity may not be as important to the effectiveness of threat appeals as increasing perceptions of vulnerability (Maddux, & Rogers, 1983.). Whilst meta-analytical evidence has suggested that both severity and vulnerability are positively related with message acceptance (Witte & Allen, 2000), ensuring that a threat is regarded as personally relevant by members of the target audience appears to be a key moderating factor (Rotfeld, 1999). Moreover, vulnerability has been shown to have greater impact on changes in intentions and behaviour than fear arousal (Cameron & Newstead, 2000). This suggests that the key to behavioural change lies in creating vulnerable threats as opposed to relying on fear arousal to motivate change. This notion of identifying personally relevant threats for particular target audiences is consistent with market segmentation which suggests that different audiences are likely to respond more or less effectively to particular threats (Rossiter & Thornton 2004). Moreover, it acknowledges the fact that individuals fear different threats.
Consequently, for a speeding advert to be effective it is essential that the optimal type of threat is utilised (Dejong & Atkin1995). Whilst, speeding advert has tended to rely heavily upon physical threats of injury and death, threats may also be social, psychological, or financial (Donovan & Henley, 1997). Evidence suggests that the frequent use of physical threats in speeding advertisement may be problematic given that such appeals may not be regarded relevant, and hence persuasive, by males. For instance, several studies have found that a strong physical threat in speeding advert ( eg: where death of a passenger was the aversive outcome ‘threatened’ as resulting speeding) was more effective with female participants than males, with the males reporting significantly less intention to align their future speeding behaviour with the recommendations made in the messages (Lewis, 2002). Similarly, another study found that whilst a fear-based advertising campaign effectively reduced drivers’ intentions to speed, the impact of the advert was weakest on young males (Tay, 2002). These results suggest that males, in particular young males appear to be less persuaded by appeals involving physical threats, perhaps because they feel less vulnerable to such threats. Consistent with this suggestion, evidence that social threats (e.g., threat of losing licence and the social stigma attached to licence loss) may be an effective threat appeal alternative (Burnett & Oliver 1979).
A major methodological problem inherent in many studies in the area is the assumption that threat appeals are generally successfully in evoking fear and that this is the only emotional response elicited by exposure to the threat (Dillard & Rotfeld, 1997). Evidence has shown that threat-based appeals in road safety advertising do evoke a range of negative emotions other than fear such as guilt and remorse (Harrison & Senserrick, 1999). However, despite evoking a range of emotions, rarely do empirical studies examine the relationship between these additional emotions and persuasion despite the fact that evidence exists that has shown different discrete emotions do have differential persuasive effects: some inhibit whilst some facilitate persuasion (Dillard & Peck, 2000).
In addition to this due to the fact that specific mass media campaigns are designed according to their own respective persuasive goals, message acceptance can be operationalized in a range of ways including: changes in self-reported attitudes, intentions, or behaviour changes (Elliott, 1993). Consequently, studies evaluating the effectiveness of threat appeals are often based on different outcomes rendering comparisons across studies difficult. Moreover, in road safety advertising research on threat appeals, many studies have relied upon self-reported behavioural intentions as the primary measure of message acceptance (Burnett & Oliver, 1979) However, while intentions are a good predictor of behaviour, they are far from a perfect measure. Furthermore, studies that have included an objective measure of behaviour via the use of a driving stimulator have produced inconsistent findings. For instance, one study found that whilst threat appeals led to less reported intentions of reckless driving they also led to higher driving speed on a simulator .( Hoog, Stroebe, & Witte 2005) Consequently, such inconsistent findings make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
Limitations relating to the design and participant samples of research studies tend to reduce the generalizability of findings. For instance, fear appeal literature in general has been criticised for its over-reliance on student samples (Hastings, 2004). However the sample is unlikely to threaten the external validity of the experiment, because there is no reason to believe that students are affected differently to other types of people
In addition research studies in the fear appeal literature have been based on laboratory studies as opposed to field studies. Although laboratory studies offer heightened internal validity they do represent rather artificial, contrived settings. This type of setting is particularly troublesome for advertising research because it may force participants to attend to or watch a message that they would not typically watch in their general life (Hastings, 2004). Taking these limitations and omissions into consideration, it is apparent that gaps do exist in understanding the effectiveness of advertising research as a countermeasure for speeding. However, advertisement is widely use in today society and it has been suggested and advocated by others in the road safety research (Elliott, 2003).
Discussion of External Interview A 22 year old female was asked to participate in an external interview about the effectiveness of fear advertisement campaign as a countermeasure for speeding. (Refer to appendix 1) When asked to identify the factor most often leading to road crashes the interviewee answered “speeding”. This response is consistent with the New South Wales Statistical Statement in which 40% of participant answered speeding. (Road Traffic crashes New South Wales, 2011). The interviewee attitudes about the road safety advertisement were generally positive, suggesting a general acceptance of the approach in spite of the perception that the approach is, frightening, and emotional. In particularly, the interviewee were asked questions about their responses to how effective fear provoking advertisements is, including her perceptions of the effect the advertisement was likely to have on her behaviour, her perceptions of the relevance of the advertisement, and their perceptions of its credibility. Her response was that “it depends how sad and convincing the advertisement is, if it’s really effective then I would remember it and change my behaviour.” This suggests that her perceptions of the strength of an advertisement’s effect are much related to her perceptions of how upsetting the advertisement is. Her response is consistent with the Witte studies, maintaining the concept that advertisements that are perceived to be emotional or informative are believed to have a stronger effect on speeding behaviours.
To support the findings whether there are any differences in responses to fear provoking advertisement between males and females, the interviewee where asked to share her thoughts about a descriptive scenario of an advert. (Refer to appendix 1)
Her response was “I would be scared if I watched that, and every time I have the urge to speed the advert will haunt me and prevent me from speeding.” Consistent with the research mentioned above, her response supports the idea that female participants were more likely to be anxious about their safety and the safety of people they cared for than were male participants. Thus they are more likely to be affected by the advertisement. Female participants were more likely to believe that they had changed their behaviour because of the advertisement.

Conclusion
In conclusion, empirical evidence has suggested that fear provoking advertisement increases the effectiveness in preventing speeding behaviours. According to the PMT and the EPPM, severity, vulnerability, response efficacy, and message self-efficacy represent four of the key variables of the fear-persuasion relationship. While fear arousal appears important for attracting and adopting the message, a growing body of research has highlighted the relatively greater importance of vulnerability and efficacy. Therefore, in order to increase the deterrent effectiveness of speeding advertisement, audience perceptions of personal vulnerability and their effective coping strategies must be heighten. However, a myriad of other factors are also likely to influence the effectiveness of threat appeals beyond the factors identified in the PMT and EPPM. For instance given that young males represent a high risk road user group yet, appear less influenced by physical appeals (Lewis & Tay, 2002), whereas females tend be more affected by the physical appeals in advert.
A recommendation for anyone considering the use of advertisement t is to examine the relevance of the intended message among the target audience as well as to ensure that it elicits high levels of efficacy and vulnerability.

Appendix 1
Speeding questions for external interview

1. To what extent to you think speeding is a road safety concern?
I think it’s probably one the major contributor to road accidents

2. Why do you think some people speed?
Being late to something, joy ride, racing, just for the heck of it

3. Is it okay to speed at time?
Well I think everyone speeds once in a while, I know that doesn’t make it “ok” to speed but I think it’s kind of the norm now, It’s breaking the law but it’s not like that bad.

4. Do you think fear provoking advertisement is effective in reducing speeding?
Yes I think its effective in the way that it emphasis the consequence of speeding and makes us think about it when we’re on the road, but in the end

5. How effective do you think fixed advertising are in reducing speeding?
Depends how sad the advertisement is, if it really affected me then I would remember it and change the behaviour.

6. What do you think you can drive safely if you speed just a little over the prescribed speed limit (say up to 5klm)? I
I’ve been driving for a while so I’m pretty confident I can

7. How often do you speed?
I only speed when I’m running a little late and there’s like hardly any cars, or it’s a straight road ahead. 8. Do think that enforcement of speed fines are mainly for the purposes of revenue collecting? No I think it makes you learn from your mistake so whenever you speed you think of the consequences like fines but it also brings money in for the government.

9. What do you think can be done to reduce speeding? I think advertisement will get the message across masses of people and other countermeasure like speed camereas and stuff will assist in preventing speeding

10. The Department for Transport has launched a haunting TV campaign to tackle speeding that draws on a dead child who haunts a driver in the ad the man keeps seeing images of a child he has killed– in a mirror, through the window of the bus and in the parks. How would you react to this ad
I would be scared if I watched that, and every time I have the urge to speed I think the advert will haunt me and prevent me from speeding.