• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour
 

The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour

on

  • 410 views

Lecture delivered at Shad Valley Waterloo, July 2010.

Lecture delivered at Shad Valley Waterloo, July 2010.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
410
Views on SlideShare
404
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 6

http://www.taniacheng.com 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour Presentation Transcript

    • The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour
    • 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
    • Message Framing
      What’s the message? What behaviour is being encouraged?
      What’s the difference in how the message was ”framed”?
    • 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
    • Physical vs. Social Threat
    • Study Design: 2 x 2 Factorial
      Framing
      Loss
      Gain
      Physical loss
      Physical
      Physical gain
      Threat
      Social
      Social gain
      Social loss
    • Physical Loss
    • Physical Gain
    • Social Gain
    • Social Loss
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • Results – Intentions
    • Results - Intentions
      Physical gain condition
    • Results – Intentions
    • Results - Attitudes
      Physical gain
      Social Loss
      Social gain
      Physical loss
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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!