Gender differences in the effectiveness of public education messages aimed at smartphone use among young drivers.

Objective: The main aim of this survey study was to evaluate the relative persuasiveness of three newly developed and piloted public education messages aimed at monitoring/reading social interactive technology on a smartphone among young male and female drivers. In accordance with the Step Approach to Message Design and Testing, the messages were evaluated on a number of outcome measures and also explored the influence of self-reported involvement in the target behavior.Methods: Participants (N = 152; 105 F) were aged 17 to 25 years (Mage = 20.14 years, SD = 2.35) and were randomly allocated to either an intervention (one of the three messages) or control (no message) condition. The messages in the intervention group were assessed on acceptance (i.e., behavioral intention and message effectiveness), rejection, and the third person effect (TPE) differential score (i.e., the message is perceived to be more effective for others than for themselves).Results: Hierarchical regression analyses found that, compared to males, females reported: a) lower intention to monitor/read social interactive technology on a smartphone while driving, b) lower rejection; and, c) lower TPE likelihood, irrespective of message.Conclusions: These findings suggest that young male drivers and young female drivers require different message content to be effective and support the importance of including multiple outcome measures to explain the messages' persuasive effects.

Young drivers' engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphone: Critical beliefs to target in public education messages.

The current study forms part of a larger study based on the Step Approach to Message Design and Testing (SatMDT), a new and innovative framework designed to guide the development and evaluation of health communication messages, including road safety messages. This four step framework is based on several theories, including the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The current study followed steps one and two of the SatMDT framework and utilised a quantitative survey to validate salient beliefs (behavioural, normative, and control) about initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding to social interactive technology on smartphones by N=114 (88F, 26M) young drivers aged 17-25 years. These beliefs had been elicited in a prior in-depth qualitative study. A subsequent critical beliefs analysis identified seven beliefs as potential targets for public education messages, including, 'slow-moving traffic' (control belief - facilitator) for both monitoring/reading and responding behaviours; 'feeling at ease that you had received an expected communication' (behavioural belief -advantage) for monitoring/reading behaviour; and 'friends/peers more likely to approve' (normative belief) for responding behaviour. Potential message content targeting these seven critical beliefs is discussed in accordance with the SatMDT.

Key beliefs influencing young drivers' engagement with social interactive technology on their smartphones: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study was to identify young drivers' underlying beliefs (i.e., behavioral, normative, and control) regarding initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding to social interactive technology (i.e., functions on a Smartphone that allow the user to communicate with other people). METHOD: This qualitative study was a beliefs elicitation study in accordance with the theory of planned behavior and sought to elicit young drivers' behavioral (i.e., advantages, disadvantages), normative (i.e., who approves, who disapproves), and control beliefs (i.e., barriers, facilitators) that underpin social interactive technology use while driving. Young drivers (N = 26) aged 17 to 25 years took part in an interview or focus group discussion. RESULTS: Though differences emerged between the 3 behaviors of initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding for each of the behavioral, normative, and control belief categories, the strongest distinction was within the behavioral beliefs category (e.g., communicating with the person that they were on the way to meet was an advantage of initiating; being able to determine whether to respond was an advantage of monitoring/reading; and communicating with important people was an advantage of responding). Normative beliefs were similar for initiating and responding behaviors (e.g., friends and peers more likely to approve than other groups) and differences emerged for monitoring/reading (e.g., parents were more likely to approve of this behavior than initiating and responding). For control beliefs, there were differences between the beliefs regarding facilitators of these behaviors (e.g., familiar roads and conditions facilitated initiating; having audible notifications of an incoming communication facilitated monitoring/reading; and receiving a communication of immediate importance facilitated responding); however, the control beliefs that presented barriers were consistent across the 3 behaviors (e.g., difficult traffic/road conditions). CONCLUSION: The current study provides an important addition to the extant literature and supports emerging research that suggests that initiating, monitoring/reading, and responding may indeed be distinct behaviors with different underlying motivations.

Individual differences in drivers' cognitive processing of road safety messages.

Using Gray and McNaughton's (2000) revised reinforcement sensitivity theory (r-RST), we examined the influence of personality on processing of words presented in gain-framed and loss-framed anti-speeding messages and how the processing biases associated with personality influenced message acceptance. The r-RST predicts that the nervous system regulates personality and that behaviour is dependent upon the activation of the behavioural activation system (BAS), activated by reward cues and the fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS), activated by punishment cues. According to r-RST, individuals differ in the sensitivities of their BAS and FFFS (i.e., weak to strong), which in turn leads to stable patterns of behaviour in the presence of rewards and punishments, respectively. It was hypothesised that individual differences in personality (i.e., strength of the BAS and the FFFS) would influence the degree of both message processing (as measured by reaction time to previously viewed message words) and message acceptance (measured three ways by perceived message effectiveness, behavioural intentions, and attitudes). Specifically, it was anticipated that, individuals with a stronger BAS would process the words presented in the gain-frame messages faster than those with a weaker BAS and individuals with a stronger FFFS would process the words presented in the loss-frame messages faster than those with a weaker FFFS. Further, it was expected that greater processing (faster reaction times) would be associated with greater acceptance for that message. Driver licence holding students (N=108) were recruited to view one of four anti-speeding messages (i.e., social gain-frame, social loss-frame, physical gain-frame, and physical loss-frame). A computerised lexical decision task assessed participants' subsequent reaction times to message words, as an indicator of the extent of processing of the previously viewed message. Self-report measures assessed personality and the three message acceptance measures. As predicted, the degree of initial processing of the content of the social gain-framed message mediated the relationship between the reward sensitive trait and message effectiveness. Initial processing of the physical loss-framed message partially mediated the relationship between the punishment sensitive trait and both message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. These results show that reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity traits influence cognitive processing of gain-framed and loss-framed message content, respectively, and subsequently, message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. Specifically, a range of road safety messages (i.e., gain-frame and loss-frame messages) could be designed which align with the processing biases associated with personality and which would target those individuals who are sensitive to rewards and those who are sensitive to punishments.

Promoting public health messages: Should we move beyond fear-evoking appeals in road safety?

Road traffic injury is one of the most significant global public health issues of the 21st century. The extent to which negative, fear-evoking messages represent effective persuasive strategies remains a contentious public and empirical issue. Nevertheless, negative, fear-based appeals represent a frequently used approach in Australasian road safety advertising. The authors conducted a series of focus groups with 16 licensed drivers to explore the potential utility of appeals to emotions other than fear. More specifically, they sought to explore the utility of positive emotional appeals, such as those incorporating humor. The themes emerging from the qualitative analysis suggested that both emotion and the provision of strategies are key components contributing to the overall persuasiveness of a road safety advertisement. Overall, it appears there is support for researchers and health advertising practitioners to provide further attention to the role that positive emotional appeals might play in future campaigns.