This document discusses a study on the social marketing of sustainable behaviors. Specifically, it examines how different message framings (gain vs. loss and physical vs. social threat) influence youths' intentions to drive and attitudes towards driving. The study found: 1) A loss frame reduced intention to drive for non-drivers while a social loss frame may reduce intention for females. 2) A physical gain frame was effective for those who report high engagement in environmental behaviors. 3) A social gain and physical loss frame resulted in more negative attitudes towards driving. The implications are that audience segmentation, different measures of effectiveness, and how framing and threats are perceived impact responses to messages. More research is needed on effective

1. The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour

4. Social Marketing The application of commercial marketing principles to influence voluntary behaviours that benefit society E.g. anti-smoking, drinking and driving, using seatbelts, wearing sunscreen

5. Message Framing What’s the message? What behaviour is being encouraged? What’s the difference in how the message was ”framed”?

6. Gain vs. Loss Framing Tversky & Kahneman (1981): prospect theory People make decisions differently depending on whether the outcomes are framed as perceived gains or perceived losses GAIN FRAMING: if you recycle, you will conserve natural resources LOSS FRAMING: if you don’t recycle, we will run out of natural resources

7. Physical vs. Social Threat

8. Study Design: 2 x 2 Factorial Framing Loss Gain Physical loss Physical Physical gain Threat Social Social gain Social loss

9. Physical Loss

10. Physical Gain

11. Social Gain

12. Social Loss

13. Study Design Experiment: 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design Four conditions: physical gain, physical loss, social gain, social loss Participants viewed ad and completed questionnaire Sample: 250 youths aged 14-18 from K-W and Markham

14. Measures 5 point Likert scales Baseline information: Demographics Driving norm Driving behaviours Environmental behaviours Dependent variables: Ad appeal Affective arousal Driving attitudes Future intentions to drive

15. Statistical Analysis ANOVA: analysis of variance Tells us if the difference among means something or not A pvalue of < .05 means that the result is unlikely to have occurred by chance When p < .05, the result is considered statistically significant

16. Results – Intentions

17. Results - Intentions Physical gain condition

18. Results – Intentions

19. Results - Attitudes Physical gain Social Loss Social gain Physical loss

20. Discussion Which framing was most effective? It depends. Loss frames reduces intention to drive for non-drivers Social loss framing may reduces intention to drive for females Physical gain effective for those who report high engagement in environmental behaviours Social gain and physical loss resulted in reduced positive attitudes towards driving

21. Implications for Social Marketing Audience segmentation Measures of effectiveness: attitudes or behaviours? Framing and threat factors impact perception and response to an ad More research is needed

22. Final Messages Primary research is more complicated than you’d think Use your critical thinking There is no end to research Define measures of effectiveness Framing matters!