GENERAL RECOMMENDED APPROACHES
Panelists were asked to generate ideas for NHTSA about how to move part-time users of safety belts to full-time use. This discussion took place in two parts. First, as discussed in this section of the report, panelists provided general recommendations and approaches. These recommendations tended not to use the language of unconscious motivators; instead, they were reflective of the way each panelist thought about motivating behavior change. The second part of the discussion (which is described in the next section of this report) was specifically focused on ways to overcome unconscious defense mechanisms. Panelists made similar recommendations in both parts of this discussion; however, they used different terminology to describe the issues in these two conversations4. The general recommendations, which are described in this section of the report, were mostly focused on reframing various aspects of belt wearing (i.e., control, reasons to wear a belt, and what wearing a belt means). However, panelists also offered general guidance (e.g., “don’t tell people what to do,” and “customize your campaigns”) on a variety of subjects from using mental imagery to making sure all safety belts are designed the same. Note that many of these recommendations flowed directly from panelists’ thoughts about the best ways to communicate risks and about what it is about belt use that is unique.
Don’t tell people what to do
Because the demand characteristics of safety belts are clear (i.e., everyone knows you are supposed to wear them), one of the recommendations the experts made is that campaigns never need to say “wear your seatbelt.” In fact, the experts suggested there is a lot to be gained by not using this phrase, as the phrase itself may evoke resistance and challenge personal freedom. Instead, panelists thought messages should position belt wearing as a personal decision. The experts also said that humor and unexpected messages may help a great deal in this regard: “The humor element is so often left out.” They noted that creating humorous messages that strike the right balance is difficult: “It has to be done by some smart, intelligent people.” While these experts did not see themselves as the ones to do this, two message ideas were offered. The first was: “If you’re drinking and driving, wear your seatbelt. If you’re not drinking and driving, wear your seatbelt.” The benefits of this message are that it is unexpected and thus attention getting, and that the first part of the message subtly highlights the risk addressed in the second part. The second suggestion was to develop a campaign to tell people that they can wear an actual belt or a fake belt, i.e., that both comply with belt laws. Again, the idea is that an unexpected message subtly directs people to the fact that wearing a fake belt is ridiculous, and, thus, reminds them that wearing actual belts is important. In general, the experts thought indirect messages such as this were more likely to be successful.
Customize messages for the target audience
The best messages are personalized for the target audience, and speak to how target audience members think and feel about issues. Personalization allows message recipients “a way of taking control,” because it makes belt use a personal decision. The goal of personalized messages is not conversion to the message designer’s point-of-view: “That is religion.” Instead, the experts encouraged message designers to think about the target audience’s motives, and craft messages with these motives in mind. Good messages work with “what people already believe, and use [these beliefs] to do the things we want [them] to do.” For example, condom marketers know that their target audience is thinking about “moving things along,” not “preventing disease.” Thus, condoms are marketed as “for her pleasure.” In the same way, safety belt marketers need to understand their targets’ state of mind (e.g., getting quickly to a destination), and belts should be marketed as a way to reach these goals.
Messages should also be consistent with and reinforce the audience’s self image: “It is about who they are, finding who they are, and [giving them] … an instant reward.” One panelist talked about GM’s very successful “Like a Rock Campaign” which was built around research that pickup truck drivers see themselves as dependable. If research on safety belt nonusers found similar self-perceptions, a campaign could be built around the notion of belt wearing as a way to be dependable for your friends. Personalized messages can be targeted to provide people with new information, but the key is to do this in a nonthreatening way, even if it involves an unconventional approach. In the end, the experts said it is the behavior that counts: “You want them to put on their belts, you don’t care why they do it.”
Reframing control
As discussed previously, panelists agreed that wearing a safety belt poses a challenge to the sense of personal control driving creates. Thus, one of the panelists’ main recommendations is that any campaign promoting the use of belts must do so in such a way that it does not threaten this sense of control. The trick, according to panelists, is to work within these illusions of control: “I think there has to be something in the message, or something in the use, that allows it [to] be used without it being perceived as an infringement on control.” For example, one panelist talked about the fact that he refuses to engage in some safety behaviors because he does not want to confront the degree to which he is not in control over his life outcomes. Thus, he said: “There are things I won’t do in my life that are rationally stupid … but it is almost like I refuse to take all these precautions because the quality of my life just seems less if I have to worry … [So, any campaign] has got to be framed and defined as a behavior that has nothing to do with your limited personal control over your life.” Themes related to this issue of how to promote belt use without threatening personal control are listed below.
- One suggestion was simply to move away from the notion of safety belts as something that restrains you, and move towards a notion where belts are freeing. Panelists suggested calling them “freedom belts,” e.g., because they free you from mild anxiety (see below).
- Likewise, belt use can be positioned as a way for people to gain control over what happens to them. Using a safety belt is one way to “eliminate a mild, negative, outcome like worrying.” Safety belts thus become a way for people to exercise positive control over their environments.
- In a similar vein, panelists recommended focusing on mild fear (e.g., getting a ticket) paired with efficacy (i.e., wearing a safety belt). They said the consequence should be something that is probable and mildly negative, because a message that was overly negative (e.g., focused on death) might trigger too much anxiety. For something a bit stronger than getting a ticket, experts suggested NHTSA might also use the avoidance of minor injuries as a reason to wear a belt. Here again, audience research is important. To be most effective, the campaign should capitalize on whatever anxiety naturally exists about driving, and position belts as a way to overcome this anxiety: “Where it has been shown to work is where the fear is sort of mild and it is paired very closely with ‘here is how you can get rid of this fear.’ So we don’t want, I think, to say, ‘Let’s make our drivers more afraid,’ but we want to … promote a fear that is more of a threat really than a fear. And to say this action is what you can do to eliminate that.”
- Safety belts could also be positioned as a way to enhance the feeling of control that people get when in a car. For example, belts could be marketed as “helping you feel more in control behind the wheel,” or “enhancing the feeling of acceleration.” However, the experts cautioned that this approach might encourage reckless driving; more study would be needed before implementing such a campaign.
- Another strategy is to connect pleasure with the notion of control. For example, an attractive woman could talk about how she “likes her men alive.” This message could come from a female racecar driver, reinforcing that the message is not about fear but simply about making a smart choice. Panelists emphasized that pleasure is a powerful motivator.
- Finally, panelists said that there must be a gentle way to remind people that they are not always in control. One panelist cited a line from a play by T.S. Eliot where you “find that there is one more step than you expected there to be, and suddenly, at the bottom of the staircase, you turn from an active agent … who is in control of his destiny, into what Eliot calls ‘an object [a]t the mercy of a malevolent staircase.’” Suggestions on how to remind people that they are not in control are offered later in this report.
Reframing reasons for wearing belts
Perhaps even more importantly than reframing the issue of control, panelists thought that reframing the reason for wearing a belt was critical. As one expert said, “Reframing is one of the keys … it is a subtle way to get into those affective tags, or nuances, that are associated with trying to attract people towards a certain behavior, or make them avoid an undesirable behavior.” Panelists’ main suggestion in this area was to take belt use out of the realm of safety/fear reduction, and move it into some other (less threatening) area. They noted that this is hard to do, because a “prevention focus is the usual focus for seatbelts: it prevents bad accidents, death, disfigurement, dismemberment, you know, any of that. The promotion focus is a lot harder to think about.” Among their suggestions:
- Wear a belt to give “other people peace of mind that you are being safe.” Or, more specifically, wear a belt to protect yourself for your friends. One panelist described a possible commercial based on this theme, with teenage girls in a car rolling their eyes and making a noise that sounds like “nst” (a put-down) to someone not wearing a belt.
- Wear a belt because other people care about you. One panelist suggested, “You have a campaign that seems to be a campaign asking friends to tell each other to wear their belt. But it is really a campaign aimed at the nonbelt user, they are going to put it on just so it looks like someone asked them to wear their belt.” Thus, wearing a belt becomes something you do if you are “part of the tribe.”
- Wear a belt as a means of social modeling for your children, so that your children will grow up knowing that wearing a belt is important.
- Wear a belt because it enhances the experience of driving, e.g., it makes you feel more secure and better able to enjoy the ride (but be cautious of promoting reckless driving).
- Wear a belt in your day-to-day life so you can have fun some other time.
- Wear a belt because it is a fun and popular thing to do: “Make it easy, fun, and popular. You know, it is easy to do, so there is no cognitive load. Make it fun. And make it popular; everybody does it. Then they will use it.”
- Wear a belt to be a rebel (although panelists could not think who or what you could rebel against by wearing a belt).
- Wear a belt to get an instant reward, e.g., you feel good about yourself because you are showing you love your family. Panelists emphasized that instant rewards are likely to be more effective than the typical delayed rewards associated with belt use (e.g., not getting a ticket, or not getting injured), because instant rewards provide constant positive reinforcement.
- Wear a belt because it makes you a better driver and a better passenger.
- Wear a belt for “the future,” not because it is “holding you back” (i.e., flip the cognitive story).
- Finally, replace the counterfactual: “Another way to think about reframing is what the counterfactual is. What is it that it is not? … And if you could replace the counter-fact with a different one … you know, failing to buy a condom means I am a lousy lover … that is so powerful … change the meaning of the event, get it to be about something else.” So, if the current counterfactual is that not wearing a belt means you are rebelling against the government impinging on your personal freedom, change the meaning of not wearing a belt to something less desirable (e.g., being stubborn or stupid).
Make safety belts serve a different purpose
Related to the idea of reframing the meaning of safety belts, panelists also thought it might be helpful to somehow redesign belts so that they served a practical purpose (i.e., so that you could wear a belt for reasons other than safety). For example, panelists thought fasteners could be created that easily attached to and were removable from belts. The fasteners could be decorated with first names, team logos, slogans, Greek letters, or anything else that allows belts to be “self-expressive rather than self-defensive,” and “show your personality by wearing a belt.” Panelists thought a corporation might want to sponsor this “seatbelt garb,” and saw it as similar to the personalization you can affix to a cell phone: “Sew little Velcro sleeves with your name on it, and the sleeves can then fold over the seatbelt … and you can even do it in reverse lettering so that people in the rearview mirror can see.” Alternately, panelists thought safety belts could be made more practical in some other way, e.g., by including a pocket for change or a cell phone (although panelists cautioned that promoting cell phone use while driving is not a good idea).
Reframing perceptions of who wears a belt
Another suggestion panelists had was to reframe the perception of who wears safety belts. In general, they thought the image of belt wearers should be cool, stylish, and forward thinking. One way to change the image of belt wearers is to associate belt use with a celebrity spokesperson5. Panelists had two main suggestions for types of endorsers. The first type of endorser is a professional racecar driver (e.g., Dale Earnhardt, Jr.). Panelists thought that having a professional driver as an endorser could be successful because it reinforces the notion that smart people who take driving risks wear safety belts. The second type of endorser panelists recommended is a professional “tough-guy” athlete. The message this type of ad would send is that wearing safety belts is not “wimpy.” Discussion on the topic of endorsers included:
- “You have Dale Earnhardt, Jr., in a commercial endorsing safety belts. And saying, ‘You know, if you enjoy driving, that is great. I enjoy driving. And also, you don’t have to be crazy.’ And, in effect, reframing it and making it in some sense a positive thing rather than a fear thing. It is an overcoming fear thing, which is the motivation for the NASCAR world, I think. It is the heroism of overcoming fear.”
- “Someone like Dale Earnhardt. I mean, ‘Yes, that is right. I am doing this; this is my job. But I take care of my family by wearing a seatbelt.’”
- “Your Dale Earnhardt type of guy [who] deliberately risks his life could be a strong spokesperson … the script would say: ‘I do this for a living. I have to. But otherwise, I take care of myself. You should too.’”
- Get an NFL player, e.g., an offensive lineman, “who is massive and has a reputation for toughness. If he puts his seatbelt on in a car ad, he is saying something about protection. He protects the quarterback.”
Panelists also suggested showing ordinary people in a conversation about belt use, where non-users were called out as abnormal or undesirable. For example, they suggested the image of beautiful women discussing whether they would date a guy, and having one tell the other, “No, he is so stupid, he won’t even wear his seatbelt.” This is one way of reframing the counterfactual.
Positive reinforcements
Panelists also discussed the idea of providing positive reinforcements for safety belt wearers as a means to encourage more people to wear their belts. This idea was a bit more controversial in the group, however. Some panelists worried that such an approach could send the message that belt wearing is abnormal, which could undercut NHTSA’s efforts. These panelists cited psychological research on the effect of calling attention to a behavior: “It communicates that it is a non-normative behavior … so you might be backfiring.” Additionally, there was some sentiment that “it is a terrible low when we have to find normal … behavior as being the thing that we actually hold up as heroism.” However, other panelists thought this approach was worth taking because it might be the only way to get some people to wear belts (and thus save lives): “What if we actually have to do that to turn the tide?” Panelists suggested the following incentive approaches:
- Have a contest or prize for the best safety belt art or decorative safety belt;
- Work with insurance companies to offer a discount for belt wearing;
- Have police officers give prizes for safety belt use, e.g., free gasoline or tickets to a football game (although several panelists noted that they would be irritated to be stopped by the police for this reason);
- Have a radio station do a promotion to award belt wearers and encourage the media to cover this promotion; and,
- Install “seatbelt cameras” that catch (and reward) people who wear safety belts.
Direct influence and changing norms
Simply asking people to do something is one way to increase the prevalence of behaviors. Thus, panelists suggested that NHTSA might try the direct hire approach, e.g., pay teens to tell others to wear their safety belts. Alternately, NHTSA might have a campaign whose main message is “ask your friends to wear their belts.” A benefit of this approach is that it reinforces the idea that belt use is the norm, which should then lead to more belt use: “I think one easy answer to increased anything use, seatbelts included, is a communization of the behavior.”
Increased cognition
Another strategy the experts thought would be helpful is to encourage people to be more conscious of their behaviors in a car. For example, the experts suggested that NHTSA could encourage people to think about their starting routine in a car and to make belt use a part of this routine. In addition, the experts suggested that it might be helpful to encourage self-reflection, e.g., how much do you value your own life? The panelists also suggested encouraging thinking about zones of comfort. In other words, ask people to think about why they wear their belts in some places but not others (e.g., they wear it on a highway but not on the block where they live). Calling attention to these irregular belt use behaviors is one way to make people more conscious of how and when they wear their belts, and increased consciousness could lead to more belt wearing. Another way to encourage thought is to ask people to think about “what-if scenarios.” For example, ask people to think about what it would be like to be in a crash. Such a campaign does not need to tell people to wear their belts; people will arrive at this conclusion if they imagine a crash: “If you ask them to think about seatbelt usage in a crash, there would be absolutely no disagreement that it would be a good idea to use the seatbelts. And once thinking about that, that is when you ask them for the commitment, ‘Are you going to use your seatbelt next time?’”
An additional cognitive approach that could be encouraged is thinking about the future. As one expert said, “I am a great believer in anything thinking about the future. Counterfactual thinking, pre-factual thinking, anticipated regret, imagination and explanation, predictions of future behavior … I think those things have real impact on subsequent behavior.” This expert described a possible anticipatory regret scenario as it applies to belt use. In this scenario, he asks drivers to imagine how much regret they would feel if they did not use a belt and were in a crash versus if they used a belt and were never in a crash:
Just imagine that you failed to use your seatbelt, [and] a cement truck went through a red light, crashed into you, and you were paralyzed. How much regret would you feel? … Studies show that you would have been far less injured if you were wearing a seatbelt … [Then] imagine if you clicked your seatbelt every time you drove for the next three years, and you never came close to having an accident … How much regret would you feel?
Leading people through such a scenario may have a powerful impact; this method has been shown to work with other behaviors, and might work with safety belts because “in the near future, people would be much more concerned about the negatives of seatbelt usage, the hassle. But if you ask them to think about it in the far future, the benefits come much more into focus.”
Use of images
In addition to encouraging cognition, the experts suggested that it might be productive to encourage people to visualize images related to belt use or to create such experiences for them using virtual reality technologies. There are several different directions such images could take. One direction is to encourage people to create alarming images that make crash experiences more real, e.g., to think about what it would be like to be in a crash. Such images can be very powerful. For example, one panelist described an image he started to get in his head which made him more cautious backing out of his driveway: “I started to have this image of the little kid who is next door, who is toddler age, walking in back of me … it is an exaggerated image, but it is very effective behavior control.” Such images could also be flashed on a video screen in a car. Moreover, some other feature in a car (e.g., a sound) could encourage people to think before acting. The idea is to create an opportunity for introspection “within 10 seconds of the seatbelt event,” with the hope that such introspection would lead to more use of belts. Finally, panelists said that images could be created for people in a virtual reality environment. Such an environment could give people the opportunity to experience what it is like to be in a crash, or remind them of the unpredictability of the driving experience.
Find and capitalize on moments where change can occur
Panelists assumed that there must be moments when people are more likely to think about wearing their safety belts. Thus, another suggestion was to seek out these moments and attempt to capitalize on them. For example, people might be more inclined to think about belt wearing:
- After seeing a crash;
- After a personal close call;
- After seeing a police officer writing a ticket, or a reminder sign about belt wearing;
- After getting in a fender bender; or,
- After getting in a serious crash.
If there was some way to reach people at these moments and encourage them to think about and commit to using their safety belts, this might be an effective intervention technique. One possibility is to encourage highway patrolmen to put safety belt reminder signs around the scene of a crash, although panelists were not sure if this would be effective. In addition, one panelist cautioned that any approach like this would be difficult to implement: “I don’t know how easy it is to target people in that narrow window, because at that narrow window they are often not having a conversation with NHTSA.”
Design cars to promote belt use
Panelists had several suggestions related to car design that might increase belt use. One approach is to make all safety belts work the same. This could increase belt use by making the behavior easier to implement: “Make sure all seatbelts have exactly the same mechanisms and so on, you could probably increase seatbelt use quite a bit.” Another suggestion was to engineer safety belts to give people positive feedback: “So when people put the seatbelt on, they get some positive feeling … it smelled good. Or, you know, you got a massage as well.” Finally, they also suggested that belts could be easier to put on: “You can imagine … someone who studies automaticity … working together with somebody who works on seatbelts … That might be a practical thing to look at.”
Don’t abandon enforcement efforts
Finally, panelists emphasized that while all these suggestions might have some impact, NHTSA should continue to emphasize enforcement. Panelists mentioned two main reasons enforcement is effective. One reason is that a powerful tool to encourage belt wearing is social norms, and an enforced law is one of the strongest ways to reinforce a norm. Second, research suggests that getting a ticket is an effective motivator: “[Getting a ticket is] a highly likely outcome that is kind of mildly negative … and that is a much better motivator because it is not so scary you don’t want to think about it. It is something you could easily imagine happening … all the psychology would tell us that that would be a lot more effective [than focusing on fear or death], and it is.”
4
5