Traditionally, most of the road safety interventions across the UK and around the world have heavily relied upon the use of fear-based approaches to reduce the prevalence of risky driving amongst young adults. They usually tend to arouse a sense of fear in the audience by depicting an aversive consequence (e.g. a road crash, resulting from the driver’s engagement in an illegal and/or unsafe behaviour such as drink driving or speeding), and, once this fear is aroused, the assumption is that this heightened state of fear will lead to behaviour change (Lewis et al., 2008). Fear appeals are also com- mon in other persuasive campaigns (i.e. anti-tobacco campaigns, anti-drug campaigns, unprotected sex campaigns, promoting more physical activity etc).
Empirical results in relation to fear appeal effectiveness are mixed (Ruiter et al., 2014; Tannenbaum et al., 2015). Some researchers stipulate that fear elicitation is neces- sary to motivate individuals to accept and carry out protective activities (Morales et al., 2012; Munoz et al., 2010). Consistent with this notion, studies of drivers’ perceptions of the role (and effectiveness) of different types of road safety advertisements found that fear-based appeals were regarded by the audience as more ‘attention-grabbing’ and ‘attention-retaining’ than other approaches (Lewis, Watson, White, & Tay, 2007; Tay, Watson, Radbourne, & De Young, 2001). Witte and Allen (2000) have also identified a reliable correlation between fear arousal and persuasion to adhere to safer in-car be- haviours, which supports the finding of a previous meta-analysis (Boster & Mongeau, 1984).
One of the prominent theories that justifies the usage of fear appeal techniques is Pro- tection Motivation Theory (PMT; Rogers, 1975). According to PMT, the cognitive ap- praisal of the threat can trigger negative emotions (such as fear), leading people to think about the negative consequence of their present behaviour. Several meta-analysis of research on PTM suggest that increases in threat is associated with stopping risky
1.7. THE PROS AND CONS OF FEAR APPEALS
behaviour, as well as starting or maintaining protective behaviour (Munoz et al., 2010; Taubman – Ben-Ari et al., 2016). Furthermore, numerous researchers (Leventhal, 1967; Shen & Shen, 2011; Witte, 1996) have proposed that two parallel processes occur when an individual is exposed to fear appeals messages: (1) perceived self-efficacy; and (2) perceived threat and susceptibility.
Perceived self-efficacy refers to the extent to which people think they are able to do something to prevent whatever the fear appeal is portraying. Thus, when self-efficacy is low (i.e., one does not believe there is anything one can do to stop the fearful image from happening), people are more likely to show defensive reactions to fear appeals, which renders them ineffective (Levental, 1967). Perceived threat instead refers to the extent to which people believe themselves to be in any danger of the consequences shown. Even when people are sympathetic to the plight shown by the fear appeal and feel that the recommended precautions are both sensible and doable, the fear-appeal will not have the intended effect if people do not believe that the consequences shown will ever happen to them (Ruiter et al., 2014). Only if people feel that the portrayed consequences are relevant to themselves and feel they are able to take the preventive measures the campaign proposes, does the fear-appeal have a chance to work. However, even though fear can motivate people, it can also have the opposite effect. It may in fact lead people to employ defensive responses. Such responses may take many forms, for example with people discounting the veracity of the claims in the campaign (deHoog, Stroebe, & de Wit, 2005), by them saying that the campaign bears no personal relevance to oneself (Carey, McDermott, & Sarma, 2013), or even by avoiding exposure to the campaign altogether (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004). Specifically to young people, they recognise that fear appeals are trying to scare them, find the messages irrelevant and they doubt the consequences will happen to them (i.e. optimism bias; Glock, Unz, & Kovacs, 2012). In addition, Hastings and MacFadyen (2002) reported that young drivers, who attended a fear appeal road safety intervention, perceive the intervention to be effective for others but not themselves. There is also reason to believe
that young people have become desensitised and tired of fear appeals, rending them therefore ineffective (Hoekstra & Wegman, 2011).
These diverging results may also have something to do with the gender of the group the campaigns are aimed at. Women tend to respond more favourably to fear appeals than men, as evidenced by women’s greater recall, increased behavioural intentions and more positive attitudes towards safety message compared to men (Hoekstra & Weg- man, 2011). Young males, especially, seem to have little susceptibility to fear appeals. Lewis, Tay and Watson (2007), for example, posited that the reason why fear appeals have less effect on young males is because they tend to discount the recommendations and avoid them. Similar results were found by Tay et al. (2001), who found that a fear- evoking drink driving campaign resulted in a reduction in fatal crashes in the group of women of all ages and in older men (35–54 years old), but not in the target group of young men ages 18 to 24.
In summary, the review presented highlights the areas in which young, novice drivers appear to be the most inexperienced and vulnerable in. Research has shown, for ex- ample, that young drivers display poorly developed hazard perception skills (Pollatsek et al, 2006), are more susceptible to negative peer influence (Buckley & Watson, 2014), have a desire to engage in sensation-seeking activities (Scott-Parker et al., 2013), and exhibit high levels of optimism bias (Fernandes et al., 2007).
In addition, apart from laboratory studies, simulation experiments, and analysis of col- lision report data, another way to explore the determinants of young drivers’ risk-taking is by evaluating current young driver interventions. These interventions are delivered to young drivers in the hope that by educating them about the risks of dangerous driving this will then lead to an improvement in their subsequent driving behaviour.
The following research work will be divided in two parts. In the first part, we will evaluate the effectiveness of already existing fear appeal road safety educational interventions created in the UK by the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service and the Ministry of Defence (Chapter 2 and 3). In the second part, we will compare the effectiveness of
1.7. THE PROS AND CONS OF FEAR APPEALS
different behavioural change techniques to decrease novice drivers’ risk-taking tenden- cies, compared to traditional fear appeal (Chapter 4 and 5). By reviewing the findings from evaluations of previous interventions, and exploring what does and does not work, we will be able to better understand why young people engage in risk-taking behaviours.