120 likes | 233 Views
Attend to or ignore: How your personality may influence your response to anti-speeding messages. Sherrie Kaye, Dr Melanie White & Dr Ioni Lewis 10 th National Conference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, Brisbane, 2011. CRICOS No. 00213J. Overview. Background Personality
E N D
Attend to or ignore: How your personality may influence your response to anti-speeding messages Sherrie Kaye, Dr Melanie White & Dr Ioni Lewis 10th National Conference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion, Brisbane, 2011 CRICOS No. 00213J
Overview • Background • Personality • Health messages • Hypotheses • Method • Results • Conclusions • Practical Implications CRICOS No. 00213J
Personality • Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory • Biological theory of personality/motivation • Two major systems govern behaviour: • Behavioural Activation System (BAS; reward system) • Fight, Flight, Freezing System (FFFS; punishment system)
Health messages • Road safety • Message theme • Message framing • Gain-framed messages • ‘400 people will be saved if drivers were to obey the speed limits’ • Loss-framed messages • ‘400 people will die if drivers do not obey the speed limits’ • Message acceptance • Message effectiveness • Attitudes • Behavioural intentions
Hypotheses • It was hypothesised that both message processing and message acceptance would be dependent upon an individual’s sensitivity to reward or sensitivity to punishment • Stronger reward system = gain-framed messages • Stronger punishment system = loss-framed messages
Method • Participants • 133 (69% female) • Aged 17-54 years (M = 24.13, SD = 8.80) • Between groups design • One of four anti-speeding messages or no message • Measures • Lexical decision task to assess word processing • Self-report questionnaires (personality & persuasion) • Analysis • Mediation (Preacher & Hayes Bootstrapping method) • One-Way ANOVA
Results RT • Social gain-framed message & BAS • Mediation: • ANOVA: β = -89.98* β = -0.01* BAS Effective β = 1.42* *p<.05 β = 0.75 p =.050 p =.050
Results • No additional significant findings • Physical gain-framed message & BAS • Processed words differently • Physical anti-speeding messages more common • Loss-framed messages & FFFS • Social words more positive valenced (i.e., activated BAS instead of FFFS) • Different fight, flight, and freezing responses to the physical loss-framed message
Conclusions • Participants with a stronger BAS would show greater processing of gain-framed messages than those with a weaker BAS and this processing bias would predict message acceptance • Some support • Participants with a stronger FFFS who were exposed to the loss-framed messages would show a greater processing bias than those with a weaker FFFS and this processing bias would predict message acceptance • No support
Practical Implications • How road users respond to road safety messages • Design more effective messages to target these higher risk individuals • Help reduce the number of road related injuries and fatalities
Acknowledgments • Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Queensland (2010, Honours Bursary) • Queensland Injury Prevention Council for student funding (2011, PhD Scholarship)
Questions? s1.kaye@qut.edu.au Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013) 26-29 August 2013, Brisbane