Campaign education
The idea of trying to reach high numbers of people to educate them about important issues is not new , and it has an obvious appeal . If there is a behaviour that large numbers of people are engaging in , but that we know is dangerous , then logic perhaps tells us that we should try approaches that share basic information and memorable messages using cost-effective channels such as tv , radio , posters and – of course - social media .
Perhaps the most famous and established campaign ‘ brand ’ is Think ! which evolved following the publication of the 2000 ‘ Tomorrow ’ s roads : Safer for everyone ’¹ strategy . A number of Think ! campaigns have targeted mobile phone use . Many of these adopted a fear-based approach , highlighting the personal consequences that can result from using a mobile phone while driving , such as that which featured a split-screen and implicated the caller in the distraction ( and subsequent crash ) of the driver 2 . More recently , a more rational approach has been favoured , with , the suggestion that we ‘ make the glove compartment the phone compartment ’ 3 .
Whilst an individual may think about how they use a mobile phone while driving , they may also be thinking that they do not really use it , or they use it in ways that are not dangerous . This is likely given that the majority of drivers consider themselves safer than other drivers 5 . Alternatively , they may think about their behaviour in terms of how they can use their phone ‘ without being caught ’, thinking of the legal implications as the risk associated with the action - not the personal consequences .
Awareness and education campaigns are notoriously difficult to evaluate , but some evidence of the impact of Think ! campaigns 4 is available . For example , a 2008 evaluation found that over 80 % of those questioned recalled seeing something related to a Think ! campaign about mobile use by drivers . When asked specifically about the ‘ split screen ’ television advert described above , 29 % claimed that it made them think about their own driving , initially suggesting that the campaign may be useful in improving driver behaviour .
However , making someone think about their behaviour is not the same thing as creating behaviour change .
¹ DfT ( 2000 ). Tomorrow ’ s Roads – Safer for Everyone . London : HMSO
2 https :// www . youtube . com / watch ? reload = 9 & v = 72gRlWXgD0o
3 https :// www . think . gov . uk / campaign / mobile-phones /
4
DfT ( 2009 ). THINK ! Road Safety Campaign Evaluation : Post evaluation of June 2009 Mobile Phone campaign . Available from : http :// webarchive . nationalarchives . gov . uk / 20100202120215 / http :// think . dft . gov . uk / pdf / 332982 / 332986 / 0906-mobiles-post . pdf
5
Harré , N ., Foster , S . and O ’ neill , M ., ( 2005 ). Self enhancement , crash ‐risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers . British journal of psychology , 96 ( 2 ), pp . 215-230 .
77