Transcript Presentation (MS PowerPoint 1MB)

Attend to or ignore: How your personality
may influence your response to antispeeding 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
• Social gain-framed message & BAS
• Mediation:
β = -89.98*
β = -0.01*
β = 1.42*
*p<.05
β = 0.75
• ANOVA:
5.9
580
Mean subscale rating
mean reaction time (ms)
600
560
540
520
500
480
Strong BAS
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
Weak BAS
BAS and cognitive processing
5.8
p =.050
Strong BAS
Weak BAS
BAS and behavioural intention
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 lossframed 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?
[email protected]
Mark your Diaries!
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs
and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013)
26-29 August 2013, Brisbane