The Scottish Government

FOOLSSPEED: Evaluation of a theory-based advertising campaign to reduce speeding

Martine Stead, Anne Marie MacKintosh, Stephen Tagg, Douglas Eadie
Centre for Social Marketing, University of Strathclyde

This document is also available in pdf format (132k)

Main Findings

Introduction

'Foolsspeed' is a five-year campaign by the Scottish Road Safety Campaign designed to reduce the use of inappropriate and excessive speed on Scotland's roads. A major component of the campaign is a structured mass media campaign designed using the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1988). This is a psychological model which explains and predicts behaviour in terms of key determinants such as Attitudes (beliefs about the consequences of speeding), Subjective Norms (perceptions of whether significant others, such as parents, partners or friends, approve or disapprove of speeding) and Perceived Behavioural Control (perceptions of how easy or difficult it is to stick to the speed limit in different circumstances).

The campaign began in November 1998 with the introduction of the Foolsspeed logo in television advertising, publicity materials and unpaid publicity. Three different 40-second television ads were then developed, each one designed to address one of the three main determinants of speeding according to the TPB: "Mirror" in Spring 1999 addressed Attitudes towards speeding, "Friends and Family" in Spring 2000 addressed Subjective Norms regarding speeding, and "Simon Says" in Summer 2001 addressed Perceived Behavioural Control. The ads represented a departure from much road safety advertising in two ways; firstly, they had a strong theoretical underpinning, and secondly, they deliberately avoided using graphic, fear-arousing imagery, instead adopting a low-key realistic approach designed to trigger identification and empathy in viewers. Detailed exploratory and pretesting research was used in the development of the ads to ensure that they communicated the desired messages and elicited appropriate emotional responses.

The campaign was targeted at the general driving population in Scotland. However, a key sub-group for the campaign is drivers with a known tendency to speed, particularly 25-44 year old males in social classes ABC1.

The first three years of Foolsspeed advertising were evaluated by the Centre for Social Marketing (CSM) at the University of Strathclyde through a three-year longitudinal survey of a quota sample of drivers aged 17-54. The evaluation:

1. assessed awareness and recall of elements of the Foolsspeed campaign amongst the driving population

2. examined drivers' response to the Foolsspeed advertising in terms of comprehension, identification, involvement and perceptions of key messages

3. measured and compared drivers' reported behaviour, intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control in relation to urban speeding (i.e. speeding on a 30mph limit road) at baseline and at subsequent stages to assess whether any changes occurred

A baseline survey was conducted in October 1998 with 550 respondents aged 17-54, and follow-up surveys were conducted in Spring 1999, Spring 2000 and early Summer 2001. A structured questionnaire was administered face-to-face in respondents' homes. Renfrew, in the West of Scotland, was selected as the study area because it is representative of the overall Scottish population in terms of car ownership and its range of affluence and deprivation.

Campaign awareness

Between a fifth and a third of respondents over the three surveys spontaneously mentioned having seen Foolsspeed advertising on television. There were also relatively high levels of spontaneous awareness, at all survey stages, of seeing Foolsspeed in a range of other media including vehicle-side advertising, posters and billboards, newspapers and cinema. Level of recall rose when respondents were prompted with the Foolsspeed name (64% at the 2nd survey to 92% at the 4th survey) and with a picture of the Foolsspeed logo (66% at the 2nd survey to 95% at the 4th survey).

Of the three 40-second ads, the 'Mirror' ad received the highest level of prompted recall, 74% in Spring 1999 rising to 86% in both subsequent years. 'Friends & Family' and 'Simon Says' received lower levels of prompted recall in the years they were first screened (55% and 53% respectively), although prompted awareness of 'Friends & Family' rose to 83% by its second year. Because respondents are exposed to visuals of the Foolsspeed advertising and logo at each survey stage, the earliest awareness measure taken for each campaign element is the most meaningful.

Response to the ads

A series of closed questions examined respondents' liking, comprehension, identification and involvement with the advertisements, while open-ended questions probed their spontaneous response at an emotional level. Respondents were asked 'what thoughts and feelings occurred to you on seeing the ad?' and 'what do you think the ad is trying to say?'. They were encouraged to say as much as possible, and verbatim responses were transcribed and coded by theme. Immediate reactions such as these provide indications as to whether advertising is engaging with its target group, engagement with an advertisement being an important precursor to attitude and behaviour change.

The "Mirror" advert depicted a complacent driver arguing with his anti-speeding alter ego or conscience as he drives through suburban roads, only to have a near miss at the end of the ad. It appeared to trigger spontaneous feelings of identification (comments such as 'I recognised myself' and 'it could have been me') and to challenge drivers to reflect on their own driving. Encouragingly, drivers in the target age group of 25-44 were more likely to express these sorts of feelings of involvement with the ad than other drivers. At a prompted level, the majority of respondents liked the "Mirror" advertisement, found it easy to understand, considered that it did not 'talk down' to them, and made them think about their own driving. Particularly encouragingly, frequent speeders were most likely to feel that the advertisement was targeted at them and to agree that the advertisement made them feel that they 'drove too fast' (Figure 1).

The "Friends and Family" ad showed the female partner and male friend of a speeding driver describing how much they disliked his behaviour. Overall, respondents seemed to identify slightly less well with the driver in this ad compared to "Mirror", perhaps because the speeding behaviour shown in it was more extreme. They did spontaneously express feelings of identification, concern and empathy for the passengers of the speeding driver. At a prompted level, the majority of respondents found the advertisement easy to understand, liked it, considered that it did not 'talk down' to them; the advertisement also appeared to encourage them to think about how passengers viewed their driving.

The "Simon Says" advert used the playground game Simon Says to show how people blame factors outside their apparent control for speeding (such as being in a flow of traffic where everyone's speeding, or being in a hurry). Over half of the respondents who had seen the ad spontaneously commented on the theme of external pressure and identified with the scenarios depicted in the ad. At a prompted level, the majority of respondents found the ad easy to understand, felt it did not 'talk down' to them, liked it, and felt it made them think about their own driving. There was higher agreement with three statements - 'the ad made me feel I need to have more control over my speed', 'the ad made me feel bad about how I drive' and 'the ad made me feel that I drive too fast' - among more frequent speeders, which suggests that, as with "Mirror", the ad was more successful in encouraging reflection and dissonance about one's own driving among drivers who speed.

Attitudes, norms and control

A summary of the changes found in the Theory of Planned Behaviour components, and whether these changes were associated with awareness of the Foolsspeed campaign, is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Summary of TPB changes

Drivers' attitudes towards speeding became significantly more negative - i.e. anti-speeding - over the course of the campaign. Respondents' overall attitudes towards speeding and their 'negative affective beliefs' and 'positive affective beliefs' (beliefs about the emotional benefits associated with speeding) all became significantly more anti-speeding after the baseline survey and up to the 4th and final survey. These changes in attitudes and affective beliefs were nearly always significantly associated with awareness of the Mirror ad; i.e. they did not occur in those who did not see the Mirror ad. This suggests that the first of the Foolsspeed ads, Mirror, was effective in changing drivers' attitudes about speeding.

There was no evidence that respondents' Subjective Norms or Perceived Behavioural Control changed substantially over the campaign period. Minor changes did occur in the items which make up these two determinants, between the baseline and subsequent surveys. These effects were either short-lived or not always in the desired anti-speeding direction. There was only weak evidence that awareness of the Friends and Family ad had an effect on Subjective Norms, and no evidence that awareness of Simon Says had an effect on Perceived Behavioural Control.

Behavioural intentions and reported speeding behaviour

There was no evidence of a change in Behavioural Intentions (respondents' stated intentions to speed or not in particular circumstances) between the baseline and any subsequent survey. Between the baseline and 3rd survey, and between the baseline and 4th survey, respondents reported significantly less frequent speeding in one of three different driving circumstances included in the questionnaire, 'on a road with a 30mph limit'. This change was not associated with awareness of the Foolsspeed advertising.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the study suggests that the TPB provides a promising framework not only for understanding and describing driver behaviour, but also for designing theory-based road safety interventions. The results demonstrate that it is possible to create memorable and engaging road safety advertising without the use of graphic and fear-inducing images. Foolsspeed's low-key, realistic approach appears to have been effective in creating awareness of speeding as an issue and in triggering identification, empathy and reflection among the target group. This suggests that there is value in pursuing non-fear-based advertising approaches in the future. Furthermore, there is robust evidence that the campaign was associated with a change in attitudes towards speeding and in affective beliefs - beliefs about the emotional benefits of speeding. In the context of what is known about the limitations of mass media advertising as a social change strategy, and the limited ability of the mass media to stimulate attitudinal and behavioural change, this could be seen as a worthwhile achievement, and one which provides a sound platform for further speeding interventions in Scotland.