1. CRICOS No. 00213J 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

2. Overview Background –Personality –Health messages Hypotheses Method Results Conclusions Practical Implications CRICOS No. 00213J

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Results Social gain-framed message & BAS Mediation: ANOVA: β = -89.98* β = -0.01* β = 1.42* β = 0.75 *p<.05 p =.050

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Acknowledgments Centre for Accident Research & Road Safety - Queensland (2010, Honours Bursary) Queensland Injury Prevention Council for student funding (2011, PhD Scholarship)

12. Questions? s1.kaye@qut.edu.au Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013) 26-29 August 2013, Brisbane