Motor vehicle message and filler word ratings. A paired t-test showed that there were no significant difference between message words (M = 3.30, SD = 0.79) and filler words
95 (M = 3.25, SD = 0.90) on word arousal ratings, t(12) = 0.14, p = .891, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.77],
2 = .00. Thus, consistent with expectations, similar word arousal ratings were obtained for the message words and matched filler words.
Motor vehicle message and social message word ratings. An independent groups t-test was used to examine the word arousal differences between the motor vehicle message and social loss-framed message.23 The results showed that there was no significant difference between the social message words (M = 3.78, SD = 0.91) and motor vehicle message words (M = 3.29, SD = 0.79) on arousal ratings, t(24) = -1.43, p = .165, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.18], 2 = .07. Thus, as anticipated, similar word arousal ratings were obtained for the words used in the motor vehicle message and the social loss-framed message.24
6.9.4 Word valence ratings
Motor vehicle message and filler word ratings. A paired t-test revealed that there were no significant difference between message words (M = 4.80, SD = 0.74) and filler words (M = 4.54, SD = 0.51) on word valence ratings, t(12) = 1.15, p = .274, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.73],
2 = .10. Thus, as intended, similar word valence ratings were obtained for the message words and matched filler words.
Motor vehicle message and social message word ratings. An independent groups t-test revealed that there were no significant difference between the social message words (M = 5.01, SD = 0.90) and motor vehicle message words (M = 4.80, SD = 0.74) on valence ratings, t(24) = 0.66, p = .518, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.88], 2 = .01. Thus, as expected, similar valence
23 The motor vehicle message and the social loss-frame message were used in Study 2 to activate the BIS (i.e., the vehicle message was developed to activate the BAS and the social loss-frame message was developed to activate the FFFS).
24 While it is acknowledged that Study 1a combined both the social loss-framed and gain-framed messages, the words included in these messages were exactly the same (with the exception of seven words that were used to change message frame and were not included in the LDT word list; refer to Table 6.1). As such, there should be no difference between word arousal and word valence ratings between these two message conditions.
96 ratings were obtained for the words in the motor vehicle message and the words used in the
social loss-framed message. Table 6.4 presents the motor vehicle message words and corresponding filler words.
6.10 Discussion
The first aim of Study 1b was to assess the credibility of the motor vehicle message.
The findings showed that, on average, participants perceived this message to be neither unbelievable nor believable. As such, the credibility of the motor vehicle message was examined in Study 1c to further explore participants’ reactions towards this vehicle message and to assess if this message was suitable to activate the BAS in Study 2.
To reduce any potential word confounds in subsequent studies, the second aim of Study 1b was to compare the arousal and valence ratings of the word stimuli included in the motor vehicle message with the social loss-framed messages and to match filler words to those words included in the vehicle message. The findings indicated that words in the vehicle and social messages were matched on arousal and valence ratings. Consequently, it was concluded that there were no significant word confounds that should significantly influence the findings in Study 2. Further, the filler words that best matched the vehicle message words in terms of perceived arousal and valence ratings were retained for inclusion in the LDT in Study 2.
On completion of Studies 1a and 1b, additional participants were recruited for a series of small focus group discussions to further explore young drivers’ thoughts and feelings towards the refined road safety and motor vehicle messages and to follow-up on the self-reported responses self-reported in these two studies. Specifically, the discussions were designed to probe message frame (i.e., gain and loss-framed), message type (i.e., physical and social), and the credibility of the vehicle message (i.e., believable or unbelievable) and, in turn, provide a stronger rationale for selecting this stimuli to assess the revised RST in Study 2.
97 Table 6.4
Structural Characteristics and Participant Perceptions of the Motor Vehicle Words and Corresponding Filler Words (N = 21)
Motor vehicle message words Corresponding filler words
Word Length Frequency Arousal Valence Word Length Frequency Arousal Valence
achieve 7 7.33 4.43 6.10 applied 7 6.16 2.48 4.57
exceeds 7 0.73 4.86 5.57 compile 7 0.53 2.29 4.05
vehicle 7 22.61 3.05 4.15 journey 7 19.94 4.40 5.19
powered 7 1.37 3.55 5.29 immense 7 1.61 4.62 5.00
engine 6 31.88 3.38 4.35 market 6 36.24 3.38 4.29
reaches 7 5.24 3.14 5.05 reflect 7 4.18 2.71 4.29
top 3 133.43 3.67 5.35 hot 3 189.84 4.62 4.62
fastest* 7 5.84 4.62 5.70 quicker* 7 7.18 3.95 5.24
street 6 148.18 2.24 3.85 answer 6 176.20 3.05 4.38
permitted 9 4.35 2.43 4.38 entertain 9 6.14 3.81 5.24
test 4 84.08 2.52 4.57 list 4 80.59 2.38 3.75
today 5 433.80 3.19 4.29 house 5 514.00 3.05 4.40
all 3 5161.86 2.52 4.57 get 3 4583.76 2.00 3.95
Total Means 6 464.67 3.35 4.86 Total Means 6 432.80 3.29 4.54
Note. Arousal scale (1 = low arousal, 7 = high arousal); Valence scale (1 = negative, 7 = positive). ‘*’ not included in the final word list.
98 Study 1c: Qualitative analysis of the road safety and motor vehicle messages25
Study 1c aimed to further explore young drivers’ thoughts and feelings towards the road safety messages and motor vehicle message via qualitative methods. Specifically, Study 1c explored if participants could identify that the road safety messages differed in frame (i.e., gain and loss) and type (i.e., physical and social). Considering the self-report data in Study 1b showed that participants perceived the motor vehicle message to be neither believable nor unbelievable, this study was also designed to further assess the credibility of this message and to test if it would be an appropriate stimulus to activate the BAS in Study 2.
6.11 Method 6.11.1 Participants
A total of 17 young licensed drivers (11 males), were recruited from an undergraduate student cohort via email and course websites to take part in interviews or small group
discussions of up to three individuals. Three interviews and six group discussions were undertaken over the course of the data collection. Conducting group discussions and
interviews simultaneously (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008) enabled triangulation of method and specifically enabled the researchers to achieve a greater understanding of young drivers’
perceptions towards road safety messages and a motor vehicle message and reach data saturation. Out of respect for an individual’s time and interest in the study, an interview was conducted if one participant signed up or attended the session.26 Participants were recruited until data saturation had occurred; until it was considered that no new information was being provided by the participants (Morgan, 1998). Selection criteria required participants to be between 17 and 25 years of age (M = 19.65, SD = 1.37) and to hold a current Australian Open
25 Parts of Study 1c have been taken from a paper that is currently under review: Kaye, S., White, M., & Lewis, I. (under review). Young drivers’ perceptions of road safety messages and a high performance vehicle
advertisement: A qualitative exploration.
26 From this point forward, the term ‘discussions’ will be used when referring to interviews and group discussions.
99 or Provisional driver’s licence (n = 3 Open licence, n = 14 Provisional/ restricted licence). All
participants reported that they regularly drove over the recommended speed limit. Thus, speeding was prevalent among this group of young drivers, suggesting potentially high levels of behavioural involvement in terms of current engagement in speeding behaviour.
Participants were provided with light refreshments and received partial course credit (i.e., 2.5%) for their time.
6.11.2 Materials
A semi-structured interview schedule was used to guide discussions (see Appendix A). Participants were informed that message persuasiveness referred to the extent to which they perceived the message(s) to be successful at convincing both themself and other road users to reduce their speeding behaviour. Further, all messages were presented to participants as written concept outlines and each typed in 16-point Times New Roman font on a separate A4 sheet of paper.
6.11.3 Procedure
Discussions were undertaken in a small quiet room located on a university campus, with most participant discussions ranging from 35 minutes to 1 hour. All sessions were audio recorded and the moderator took notes during the sessions to record any key comments and non-verbal cues. To increase the likelihood that the participants would feel comfortable to share their thoughts and feelings and to provide honest information, the moderator and participant(s) were the only persons present during the discussions.
Prior to the discussions, participants were asked to sign a consent form and to
complete a short self-report questionnaire that consisted of demographic items (e.g., age and gender). At the start of each session, the participants were informed that the purpose of the research was to gain a greater understanding of young drivers’ perceptions of road safety campaigns. The moderator commenced the discussions by asking general questions on
100 current road safety campaigns to engage participants in the topic of interest. Once the
moderator perceived that all participants appeared comfortable sharing their thoughts and feelings towards current road safety campaigns, participants were presented with the anti-speeding messages. To enable the moderator to explore participants’ thoughts and feelings to each individual message, all messages were presented to each participant, however each was presented one at a time and they were counterbalanced throughout the sessions to reduce any potential order and/ or fatigue effects. Further, to avoid influencing participants’ responses towards the messages, participants were not informed that the anti-speeding messages differed in message frame or type.
On completion of discussing the anti-speeding messages, participants were provided with and read the motor vehicle message. The motor vehicle message was presented last in each session as the first key objective was to assess participants’ responses to the road safety messages, prior to assessing their responses to the motor vehicle message and the potential persuasive (or dissuasive) effects associated with conflicting information cues. All
discussions concluded with the moderator providing a summary of key points to the participants to check for understanding and to clarify any discrepancies. No discrepancies were stated by the participants.