The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour

383
-1

Published on

Lecture delivered at Shad Valley Waterloo, July 2010.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
383
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour

  1. 1. The Social Marketing of Sustainable Behaviour<br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4. Social Marketing<br />The application of commercial marketing principles to influence voluntary behaviours that benefit society<br />E.g. anti-smoking, drinking and driving, using seatbelts, wearing sunscreen<br />
  5. 5. Message Framing<br />What’s the message? What behaviour is being encouraged?<br />What’s the difference in how the message was ”framed”?<br />
  6. 6. Gain vs. Loss Framing<br />Tversky & Kahneman (1981): prospect theory<br />People make decisions differently depending on whether the outcomes are framed as perceived gains or perceived losses<br />GAIN FRAMING: if you recycle, you will conserve natural resources<br />LOSS FRAMING: if you don’t recycle, we will run out of natural resources<br />
  7. 7. Physical vs. Social Threat<br />
  8. 8. Study Design: 2 x 2 Factorial<br />Framing<br />Loss<br />Gain<br />Physical loss<br />Physical<br />Physical gain<br />Threat<br />Social<br />Social gain<br />Social loss<br />
  9. 9. Physical Loss<br />
  10. 10. Physical Gain<br />
  11. 11. Social Gain<br />
  12. 12. Social Loss<br />
  13. 13. Study Design<br />Experiment: 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design<br />Four conditions: physical gain, physical loss, social gain, social loss<br />Participants viewed ad and completed questionnaire<br />Sample: 250 youths aged 14-18 from K-W and Markham<br />
  14. 14. Measures<br />5 point Likert scales<br />Baseline information: <br />Demographics<br />Driving norm<br />Driving behaviours<br />Environmental behaviours<br />Dependent variables: <br />Ad appeal<br />Affective arousal<br />Driving attitudes<br />Future intentions to drive<br />
  15. 15. Statistical Analysis<br />ANOVA: analysis of variance<br />Tells us if the difference among means something or not<br />A pvalue of < .05 means that the result is unlikely to have occurred by chance<br />When p < .05, the result is considered statistically significant<br />
  16. 16. Results – Intentions<br />
  17. 17. Results - Intentions<br />Physical gain condition<br />
  18. 18. Results – Intentions<br />
  19. 19. Results - Attitudes<br />Physical gain<br />Social Loss<br />Social gain<br />Physical loss<br />
  20. 20. Discussion<br />Which framing was most effective? It depends.<br />Loss frames reduces intention to drive for non-drivers<br />Social loss framing may reduces intention to drive for females<br />Physical gain effective for those who report high engagement in environmental behaviours<br />Social gain and physical loss resulted in reduced positive attitudes towards driving<br />
  21. 21. Implications for Social Marketing<br />Audience segmentation<br />Measures of effectiveness: attitudes or behaviours?<br />Framing and threat factors impact perception and response to an ad<br />More research is needed<br />
  22. 22. Final Messages<br />Primary research is more complicated than you’d think<br />Use your critical thinking<br />There is no end to research<br />Define measures of effectiveness<br />Framing matters!<br />

×