Distracted Driving: The Plight of Teenagers and Texting

Distracted driving has become a serious issue in this country; vehicular accidents can easily occur when drivers are doing something other than focusing on driving. With the rapidly rising popularity of cellular phones, their use in the car has increased as well. Talking on the phone while driving is problematic, however, texting while driving is even more problematic as that requires the driver to use his or her fingers while driving, as opposed to simply holding the phone to his or her ear. In 2010, 2.052 trillion text messages were sent and received by cellular phone users (1). Texting has been the cause of many injuries and fatalities due to vehicular accidents.

            Teenagers communicate on their smart phones mostly by texting, and the rate of texting is highest amongst teenagers. Further, the rate of texting while in a vehicle is also highest amongst teenagers. Drivers aged 16 to 24 were most likely to use a handheld electronic device as was reported in a 2008 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report (2). In a study using college students, 91% of participants reported texting while driving (3). Young drivers are new drivers and accordingly inexperienced and more likely to cause vehicular accidents, especially if they are distracted while driving. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults (4). Thus the risk of vehicular accidents caused by distraction is greatest amongst teenagers. A Florida study on 16 – 24 year old drivers found that 87.2% stated that they use cellular phones while driving and 70.4% use hand-held phones (5). The largest proportion of distracted drivers is under the age of 20; 11% of fatal crashes involving drivers in this age group were distracted (6). Action should be taken to curb distracted driving as a whole, with a special focus on texting and driving, especially among teenagers.

Distracted.gov

            There are several existing public and private campaigns that aim not only to educate drivers about distracted driving but also to decrease its pervasiveness. Chief among these campaigns is Distracted.gov, the Federal government’s official website for distracted driving. The website includes educational information, ways to become involved, and things to do to help keep American roads safe. The website seems to do a good job of compiling and showcasing information about distracted driving, however, there are changes that could be made to improve certain aspects of the website geared towards teenagers to help them comply with the laws that govern cellular phone use while driving.

The website is designed to serve parents, teens, educators, and employers, and it is thus heavy with statistics and scientific information. On its main menu, it offers options to peruse categories such as statistics, research, and state laws. Teenagers have become accustomed to receiving information in short (and often entertaining) bursts and at a fast pace. Those teenagers who find their way to Distracted.gov would likely become bored with the presented material, losing focus, and consequently disengaging. The website does have a section with videos, something younger individuals are more likely to view. There is also a section titled “Glee Campaign” (7) which describes a partnership with the television show Glee. Glee is very popular with teenaged viewers. Aside from a distracted driving PSA video, this section of the website contains mostly additional statistics. There are web banners and infographics, but they are comprised of quotes such as “A texting driver is 23 times more likely to get into a crash than a non-texting driver” (7). The message -- which signifies someone yelling as it is all capitalized -- is very direct, but it borders on abrasive and may only incite fear in its readers. There is nothing in the Glee section showing cast members of the program. This is a missed opportunity to use celebrities as spokespeople to convey messages about distracted driving. It has been demonstrated that the success of changing the behavior of groups is tied to the behavioral model used, and that adding or changing the use of a model can improve outcomes. 

Critique 1: Eliciting Psychological Reactance

            The Psychological Reactance Theory, developed by Sharon Brehm, explains what happens when there is a perceived loss of control due to being told what one can or cannot do. As a rule, people like to feel in control and perceived loss of control can create serious effects. Control is a drive like hunger and thirst, and being in control lights up the pleasure centers in the brain. These same pleasure centers also light up when people feed their addictions. Humans are thus biologically programmed to do the opposite of what they were told not to do in order to regain control.

Many public health and safety campaigns make the mistake of triggering reactance by telling the population what they should be doing. In general, teenagers do not like being told what to do, and greatly desire their freedom. The teenage years are spent working on gaining independence from parents and other authority figures. Distracted.gov uses slogans such as “Stop the Texts, Stop the Wrecks” (8) in an attempt to reduce teens’ combining texting with driving. Therefore, telling teenagers to stop texting (because it is unsafe) creates a greater desire for them to do so, over and above their simple desire to communicate.

Further, in a posted message, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood states that, “There's one message we hope everyone receives loud and clear: the safest way to get from one place to another is to hang up and drive. Powering down your cell phone when you're behind the wheel can save lives - maybe even your own” (9). These messages, while certainly valid, incite reactance because they do nothing other than tell young people to stop texting and driving. Additionally, studies have shown that the more explicit the message, the more reactance it will evoke (10). The Transportation Department’s messages are extremely explicit; consequently, the level of reactance in teens is high. Ultimately, the messaging backfires on its goal and may actually encourage texting. The key to reducing reactance is the frame used to convey the message; the frame should appeal to and include the audiences’ core values. A negative frame, often used in public health, is not as successful as positive frames used in marketing and advertising.  

Critique 2: The Weakness of the Use of the Health Belief Model

            The Health Belief Model, a traditional theory developed to predict health-related behaviors (11), states that behavioral decisions are made at the individual level, weighing perceived costs and benefits. The individual incorporates perceived susceptibility and severity into the perceived benefits. While the Health Belief Model is often used in public health, it does not do a good job of addressing the necessity to change behavior prevalent in epidemics (and distracted driving is becoming epidemic) because of its underlying assumption that people behave rationally. The model also assumes that once people make a decision to change their behavior, that change will take place, making no distinction between theory and practice. This is not the case because human decision-making typically involves irrational behavior (12). Traditional behavioral models were developed in the 1960s, and were effective for one-time health-related decisions such as immunization, but have been ineffective regarding addiction and long-term changes (13). Texting has become an addiction, especially for young adults.

Teenagers may be concerned about vehicular accidents and fatalities but simply inundating them with statistics and the consequences of texting and driving does not necessarily mean they will act differently the next time they receive a text message while operating a vehicle. Assuming teenagers will change their distracted driving behavior because they have the knowledge of its dangers is similar to assuming teens will stop or (better yet) never start smoking. Adolescents’ decision-making regarding smoking is based on emotions not rational thinking (14). Teens have always participated in risky behavior and simply providing them with a plethora of information regarding the risks will, unfortunately, be ineffective in accomplishing the goal of behavioral change.

            The Health Belief Model uses the assumption that behavior is changed on an individual level. However, many teenagers are socially oriented, wanting to spend all of their time with their friends. Teenagers adopt ways of dressing, speaking, and behaving by copying each other, especially if a behavior is perceived as cool. Distracted.gov does make the attempt to address teens on a group level (rather than simply as individuals) by offering information for organizing school presentations and hosting other distracted driving events. However, downloadable information and posters to be used during these events include negative and scary messages, and more statistics.  

            Another assumption that is made by using the Health Behavior Model is that teenagers will weigh the costs and benefits of abstaining from texting and driving. Again, this is a flawed approach; if teenagers weighed the benefits of discontinuing risky behavior we would no longer have adolescent smoking, drinking, engaging in sexual activity, and the ensuing unplanned pregnancies. Unfortunately, using the Health Belief Model does not address the need to account for teenagers’ persistent irrational and group-influenced decision making.   

Critique 3: Lack of Celebrity Peers and Role Models

            Distracted.gov includes, among many other things, videos, which have become very popular especially with younger viewers. As the cliché states, “a picture is worth a thousand words” (15). Videos are far more user-friendly and easier to grasp than reading text. The majority of these videos are tragic and heart-breaking stories about lives lost to distracted drivers. Family members and friends describe the victims and also talk about how their lives were sadly taken. The videos include victims of all ages, races, and geographical locations. There is also a range of ages among the friends and family members speaking in the videos. There are many parents speaking about the loss of a son or daughter. Teenagers do speak about the loss of a friend or family member, however while they may be similar to the target audience in age, they are not familiar to their audience.  

            There are few other images of people on the website. Of these, approximately 75% are of government or law enforcement personnel. For example, there is a large image of the Secretary of Transportation on his message page. There is also an image of the Secretary shaking the hands of law enforcement agents at an event. A third image shows the Secretary speaking from a podium with officials standing behind him on the stage. It is clear that these images are present to not only identify the Secretary, but also show the department’s activities, however additional opportunistic images have been omitted. An image showing the Secretary at an anti-distracted driving event for teens, interacting with them, would have been a great choice to add to the image library.

            In addition to the lack of celebrities and role models on the website, the images of other teens involved in activities they enjoy are also lacking. The main menu of the website includes a section specifically for teens, but there are no fun group images showing teens at an event in this section. It is clear that the topic of distracted driving accidents and fatalities is heavy, serious, and no laughing matter, but inundating teenagers with that kind of atmosphere will not be effective. Websites such as the84.org and thetruth.com, both anti-youth smoking movements, have images and videos throughout the website showcasing smiling and engaged teens at events. These menu categories on the websites include games, sports, music, merchandise, and art. These are concepts that interest teens, unlike facts and statistics, although those are also included on these websites. One image on the thetruth.com’s sports section shows teens on the beach at a surfing event in Hawaii. The caption reads “(T)ruth ripping it up. We’re hanging loose and taking in the Vans Triple Crown event in Hawaii” (16). By incorporating videos of things teenagers love on their website, sporting activities for example, the campaign is able to find a way to get teens to come back to the website. Adolescent viewers will return to the site to see if videos and images of additional sporting events are posted. 

            As previously mentioned, the Department of Transportation has partnered with Glee and lists information regarding this collaboration on Distracted.gov. This is another missed opportunity as there are no images or videos of the cast members. The PSA in this section calls itself the “Glee Distracted Driving PSA” (7) but other than the Glee logo in the bottom right-hand corner of the video, there is only one other mention of Glee on the webpage. A brief paragraph describing the campaign states “Thanks to the cast of Glee for their continued efforts to raise awareness about this issue” (7). Based on what is listed on the website, the particulars of the affiliation with the television program feel sparse. 

Additional Features on Distracted.Gov Could Increase Teen Compliance

            The website Distacted.gov is put together well and offers an abundance of information geared toward distracted driving education and ways to reduce its prevalence and consequences. However, additions or improvements can be made to the website so that it may work better in interesting teenagers. Appealing to teenagers’ core beliefs of freedom and independence, affecting their predictably irrational behaviors, and attracting them with their idols are all ways that the campaign can improve its efficacy. Capturing teenagers’ interest and engaging them in the discussion of the dangers of texting and driving is an important step in increasing teens’ use of Distracted.gov and their connection to distracted driving prevention.  

            The website should revise its teen-oriented section by framing it to appeal to their core beliefs of freedom and independence. Videos, games, and images attractive to teenagers should be used, similar to the design of the website of the84.org (17). The84.org is a Massachusetts based movement working to decrease youth smoking. The website is fun, playful, and captivating to young adults. There are contests, challenges, and fun activities for teens to become involved.   

Modification 1: Freedom and Independence, Not Safety and Health

            Appealing to teenagers’ core beliefs will reduce the risk that psychological reactance is in part a cause of their continued texting while driving (18). Freedom and independence, not safety and health, are core beliefs of teenagers. The site should explain to teenagers that technology has taken away their freedom. All of the messages they send electronically and post online can be tracked. Nothing is ever deleted when one presses the delete button. Overuse of technology also takes away from face to face time that could be spent with friends and participating in fun activities. If the question is posed to teens, it is likely they would prefer to be at the mall with their friends rather than sitting alone in a room texting. We are also losing the freedom to not be inundated with messages, advertisements, and electronic jargon. Teens have so many connections on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which cause them to be constantly overwhelmed by unnecessary notifications and communications. By producing messages that convey the potential loss of freedom caused by technology, youths may view texting and driving as the nemesis not the desire. Non-reactance messages need to be implicit as opposed to explicit. Conveying the ideas in a way that is subtle will be more effective than bombarding them with direct messages.

            The key to avoiding reactance is in how the issue is framed. Frames that work well appeal to the core values and beliefs of its audience (19). The truth campaign, which aims to stop youth smoking, changed its frame by replacing health with freedom and rebelling against tobacco companies. On the main page of its website, it states, “Heck, we love everybody. Our philosophy isn't antismoker or pro-smoker. It's not even about smoking. It's about the tobacco industry manipulating their products…” (16). This message is not a direct fear-inciting one that attempts to scare people into changing behaviors. It redirects blame from being placed on the smoker to the tobacco companies. Distracted driving campaigns should change the theme of their messages; blame should not be placed on young drivers texting, but on technology for taking control of our lives. Teenagers will respond to a theme of regaining control of their lives, as it stands for the freedom and independence they crave.

Modification 2: Decisions Are Not Made Rationally or Independently

            Alternative behavioral theories, unlike traditional theories, address the fact that people behave irrationally in their decision-making regarding health issues. Fundamentally, alternative models address groups rather than individuals. Two of the underlying premises of alternative models are: that a group dynamic exists and thus behavior should be predicted at the group level; and, behavior is dynamic and unplanned. Further, traditional models focus on changing attitudes first and behavior second. Alternative models have been more successful by focusing on changing behavior first and assuming that a change in attitude will follow. Based on these fundamental themes, alternative theories could be more effective in capturing the attention of teenagers and subsequently, reducing their distracted driving.

            Advertising Theory takes these themes into account and understands that change takes place on a group level and also that behavior is dynamic. The original Florida truth campaign (different from the website thetruth.com), an anti-smoking campaign geared toward teens, used these concepts to produce successful outcomes (20). Advertising Theory promises to fulfill the viewer’s deepest aspirations and supports this promise with emotionally provoking images, stories, and music.  The promise and its supporting themes are tied together by the core values of the target audience. Tobacco control advertisements have used Advertising Theory; one ad shows tobacco executives around a table laughing and makes no mention of health. The message is that smokers are being manipulated by the industry and will regain their control (an aspiration of teens) if they stop smoking.

Distracted.gov should use Advertising Theory as a basis for its website or at the very least, for the teen-oriented pages. For example, videos, posters, and brochures should be designed to appeal to teens’ desire for freedom and independence and their desire to be with their friends. The promise of the message is that teens will feel like a part of the movement to stop distracted driving; they will feel like they belong to the group. The website’s features should be branded in a way that engages the teens and provides uniformity throughout all of the material. As a group, teens will feel empowered to make the decision to stop texting and driving.

Modification 3: Familiar Messengers

            According to the principles of Communications Theory, in order for a message to be persuasive, the person chosen to deliver the message should be likable, familiar, and similar (21). For this reason, familiar speakers such as teen celebrities and iconic role models such as famous athletes should be used in videos to speak to the American teenagers. Advertising Theory uses this tactic. Many successful companies use icons as spokespeople in their advertisements; Gatorade is using Peyton Manning to endorse their products, while CoverGirl uses Taylor Swift. Teenagers look up to the iconic celebrities they follow, trying to emulate them. These famous personalities are revered by many in our society, especially impressionable adolescents.

Teenagers look up to and listen to similarly-aged celebrities and iconic role models such as famous athletes (22). Distracted.gov should add video advertisements with these icons as spokespeople. In these ads, celebrities will explain how they do not use their cellular phones while driving. The celebrities will also explain how they tell distracted drivers to stop using their phones, when they are the passengers. Teenagers viewing these commercials will more highly value the messages when they are delivered by similar and familiar individuals. For example, a compilation commercial modeled on Rock the Vote could be used (23). Rock the Vote is a movement that aims to engage youth in political awareness and build involvement. It has registered more than 5 million young people to vote (24). Rock the Vote produced ad spots that showcased approximately 15 celebrities per advertisement, such as Miley Cyrus, Miranda Cosgrove, and cast members from Modern Family to encourage political engagement.

In the proposed distracted driving prevention advertisements, celebrities such as Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, and members of the band One Direction would speak directly into the camera, each for a few seconds. They would all deliver similar messages, such as “ I always leave my phone on the back seat and wait until I get home to text my BFF back”. Additionally, the partnership with Glee should be expanded. The cast of Glee should also have a video with short spots of each of them explaining to camera that they do not drive distracted. Images of the cast members should be posted on the webpage promoting non-distracted driving in the aforementioned ways of gaining control and freedom by putting aside their smart phones.   

Conclusion

            Usage of cellular phones will likely only increase as technology becomes an even greater part of our lives, and it becomes even more of a social norm to use electronic gadgets throughout all activities and at all times of day (25). With our increasingly busy lives, the use of a phone in a vehicle may always be an enticing prospect. Many individuals attempt to multi-task by returning texts and phone calls while commuting to work or for errands. Teenagers, used to using their phones incessantly, will likely be among the drivers that reach for their phones out of instinct. It may take many years for a significant decrease in distracted driving to be visible. For this reason, it is imperative to ensure that all audiences are targeted appropriately and effectively in order to eliminate the ubiquity of distracted driving.

REFERENCES

1.       Farris A. LOL? Texting while driving is no laughing matter: proposing a coordinated response to curb this dangerous activity. Journal of Law and Policy 2011; 36:233-259.
2.      Khan CA. Commentary: Youth risk for deadly driving. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2010; 56:186-187.
3.      Harrison M. College students’ prevalence and perceptions of text messaging while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011; 43:1516–1520.
4.      Halpern-Felsher B. Adolescents and driving: a position paper of the society for adolescent health and medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health 2010; 47:212–214.
5.      Hassan H and Abdel-Aty M. Exploring the safety implications of young drivers’ behaviors, attitudes and perceptions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2013; 50:361– 370.
6.      U.S. Department of Transportation/Distraction.gov. Facts and Statistics. Washington D.C. http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html.
7.      U.S. Department of Transportation/Distraction.gov. Glee Campaign. Washington D.C.http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-involved/glee-campaign.html.
8.     U.S. Department of Transportation. The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. New PSAs Against Texting While Driving. Washington D.C. http://fastlane.dot.gov/2011/10/3-new-psas-against-texting-while-driving.html.
9.      U.S. Department of Transportation/Distraction.gov. Message from Secretary LaHood. Washington D.C. http://www.distraction.gov/content/about-us/message-from-secretary-LaHood.html.
10.  Silvia, Paul. Deflecting reactance: the role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005; 27(3):277–284.
11.   Thomas L. A critical feminist perspective of the health belief model: implications for nursing theory, research, practice, and education. Journal of Professional Nursing 1995; 11:246-252.
12.  Ariely D. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2010.
13.  Siegel M. SB721 Lecture October 4, 2012. Boston University. Boston, MA.
14.  Hicks JJ. The strategy behind Florida’s “truth” campaign. Tobacco Control 2001; 10:3-5.
15.   Barnard F.R. Advertisement. Printers' Ink. 1921.
16.  The truth. Main page. Washington D.C. http://www.thetruth.com/
17.   The 84. Main page. Boston, MA http://the84.org/
18.  Lee G et al. The roles of self-concept clarity and psychological reactance in compliance with product and service recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior 2010; 26: 1481–1487.
19.  Torelli C and Kaikati AM. Values as predictors of judgments and behaviors: the role of abstract and concrete mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2009; 96(1):231-247.
20. Davis KC et al. Association between national smoking prevention campaigns and perceived smoking prevalence among youth in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health 2007; 41: 430–436.
21.  Roskos-Ewoldsen DR et al. The influence of accessibility of source likability on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2002; 38:137–143.
22. Keel A and Nataraajan R. Celebrity endorsements and beyond: new venues for celebrity branding. Psychology and Marketing 2012; 29(9): 690–703.
23. Rock the Vote. YouTube videos. Washington D.C. http://www.youtube.com/rockthevote
24. Rock the Vote. About. Washington D.C. http://www.rockthevote.com/about/
25.  Atchley P et al. Stuck in the 70s: The role of social norms in distracted driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2012; 48: 279– 284. 

Preventing Teenage – Using Social and Behavioral Theory to critique MADD - Leah Forman

Drunk driving is a major cause of fatal car accidents, leading to the death of about 30 people daily in the United States.  According to the CDC, nearly 1/3 of all traffic related deaths from 2010 involved a driver impaired by alcohol (1).  Importantly, the risks of drunk driving do not only impact the drunken person who climbs behind the wheel.  Rather, the risks extend to the other passengers in the car, to all other people who are on the road, and to the families and friends of any potential victims.  Given just the very basic statistics cited above, combined with the legality and general accessibility of alcohol, it is clear the drunk driving is a problem that will not disappear in the near future.  As such, effective interventions and prevention strategies are desperately needed.

MADD, which stands for “Mothers against Drunk Driving”, is one such campaign.  According to its website, MADD’s mission is broken into three separate goals: “stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime, and prevent underage drinking” (2).  For the purposes of this critique, I will focus on the first part of their mission statement, which is the prevention of drunk driving.  In order to eliminate drunk driving, MADD takes a three-pronged approach: supporting law enforcement efforts, requiring in-car breathalyzers for all drunk drivers, and “supporting the development of technology to determine automatically whether or not the driver is above the legal limit” (3).

MADD clearly recognizes that drunk driving is a serious problem.  It sets out to find solutions with the best intentions.   Unfortunately, however, intentions don’t always lead to effective interventions.  MADD’s failure to invoke strong core values, its focus on individual level interventions, and its inducement of psychological reactance through the use of messengers to whom its audience cannot relate, all serve to undermine the goals they are trying to achieve.  Throughout the course of this critique, I will show that MADD would do well to learn from social and behavioral theories so as to better tailor their campaign and more effectively prevent drunk driving.

Critique #1:  Failure to invoke strong core values

            Effective interventions and campaigns are those that tailor their message to the audience they are trying to reach.  This is done through framing – presenting the intended message in a way that directly references the audience’s core values.  In fact, “it is not necessarily the relative merits of various arguments for and against a proposal that most influences its legislative fate. Rather, it is the relative success of proponents and opponents in framing the overall terms of the debate” (4).  A major part of the reason that tobacco lobbyists have been so successful is that they understand the concept of framing and have “successfully framed the debate in terms of a rights issue rather than a health issue” (5) The core values upon which frames are built are not esoteric; they are beliefs and ideals commonly held by people across all different cultures, and all different life circumstances.  These universal core values include ideals such as autonomy, freedom, equality, loyalty, and independence.  If a population believes their core values are met, they are much more likely to agree with a campaign’s message, and are therefore more likely to follow its advice. 

            A visitor to MADD’s website is immediately inundated with statistics on drunk driving – how many people are killed in drunken driving accidents, how many are injured, and how often someone is killed in a drunk driving crash (once every 53 minutes) (6). The main goal of MADD’s campaign is clear from the outset – preventing people who are drunk from getting behind the wheel and driving their car.  Through even a cursory perusal of MADD’s website, it is clear why, according to MADD, these actions need to be prevented: drunken driving often leads to fatal accidents.

            There are a number of problems with MADD’s presentation of drunk driving, and ideas for its prevention.  Through its focus on fatalities and negative consequences, MADD loses an opportunity to tie strong core values such as independence and autonomy with its recommendations and interventions.  Instead, the negative focus of its website and statistics invoke relatively weak, less compelling core values, such as safety and health.  While it is likely true that the majority of people see health as a value to which they should aspire, it is not the driving force behind most of their actions.  This is especially true for teenagers, who, for the most part, are relatively healthy, and for whom health is far from an immediate concern.  The same is true for safety.  Humans do unsafe things on a daily basis.  In fact, safety is low on the scale of factors we consider before taking action.  In addition, for the majority of drivers, health and safety, while very real concerns, are still abstract ones.  Any driver who has not yet been in an accident is, until the moment of their first accident, a relatively healthy and safe driver.  They are therefore not immediately concerned with health and safety every time they get into their car. 

            Not only does this negative focus associate MADD’s campaign with weak core values, it also prevents them from connecting with the strong core values already held by its audience. Teenagers in general, and especially those who are new drivers, share a clear set of core values. Driving is the first real opportunity they have to fully assert their own independence away from the confines of home and parental guidance.  This assertion of independence is a fundamental character trait the majority of teens share. While they are aware of the potential threat to their safety posed by driving, this feeling is not immediate, nor is it tangible. Freedom and independence, however, are tangible feelings to which all teens can relate. Because of this, a message such as MADD’s that focuses on safety instead of on independence, will fail to connect with teens.

In fact, MADD’s insistence on highlighting the negative not only fails to invoke strong core values, it presents them as opposed to the goals of its campaign. The effect of not offering alternative, positive models of behavior is that the entire campaign appears opposed to freedom, autonomy, and personal choice.  Instead of focusing entirely on the negative, MADD would do well to tailor its campaign so that through listening to its message, teens find ways to assert their independence, not to restrict it.

Critique #2  - MADD’s campaign is focused on the individual level, and ignores group dynamics

            MADD’s campaign is built on three main pillars, two of which involve passing measures that would prevent individual drunk drivers from  getting behind the wheel.  The first goal is a technological development that would require previously convicted drunk drivers to have a device in their car which would require them to pass a Breathalyzer test before  turning on their ignition. The second would create a device that automatically measures a driver’s blood alcohol content before the car is able to start (7). While these measures may prevent individual drunk drivers from actually driving while drunk, it does little to prevent teens that have not yet been caught for drunk driving, from getting behind the wheel.  First, the focus on individual drivers allows much of the intended audience to remove themselves from the dangers of drunk driving, and makes the message inapplicable to their specific situation.  Second, the focus on drivers who have already driven drunk not only further alienates those who have not yet driven drunk, but also shifts the focus from a goal of avoiding drunk driving altogether, to avoiding getting caught for driving drunk.

            For most teens reading MADD’s website, drunk driving is not an immediately relevant concern.  This is not to say that it can’t or shouldn’t be. Depending on its presentation, drunken driving could, and should be, placed at the forefront of teenage consciousness.  However, MADD’s presentation does the opposite – it makes it easy for the majority of teens to decide that the issue of drunk driving is not relevant to them, because they have never driven drunk, or at the very least, not been caught driving drunk.  Once a group of teens decides that the issue is irrelevant to their individual situation; their friends are likely to follow: “When the appropriate behavior is unclear, we tend to rely on ‘social reality’ as displayed by others” (8).  Through failing to connect with a large segment of its target population, MADD effectively creates a social reality where drunken driving issues are unimportant.  The result is that teens will not think of the issues ahead of time, and will therefore not be aware of alternative options should they find themselves in a dangerous situation.

            This focus on individuals who have already been caught driving drunk re-focuses MADD’s attention from its stated goal of avoiding drunk driving, to avoiding getting caught for driving drunk.  In so doing, the MADD campaign loses yet another opportunity to connect with its audience as a whole.  These interventions are entirely inapplicable to an individual that has not yet been caught for drunk driving.  In fact, a driver who drives drunk and has not yet been caught, may even be encouraged to continue to do so.  After all, as long as she is not caught, she has nothing to worry about, and these interventions will not apply to her.  Through its focus on individual offenders, the MADD campaign inadvertently narrows the scope and reach of its message, effectively excluding much of the population it is trying to reach. 

Critique #3 – The MADD campaign’s authoritative tone lends itself to psychological reactance, a problem that is exacerbated by its unrelatable messengers

           

            The premise of the Mothers against Drunk Driving campaign is to get teenagers and other young drivers not to do a particular action, namely – not to drive drunk.  However, most people, and especially teens, do not like being told what not to do.  In fact, telling someone not to do something often leads to the exact opposite result – the person doing exactly what you did not want them to.  “When people think that a freedom is threatened they experience reactance, a motivational state aimed at restoring the threatened freedom” (9).   This is especially true when the person receiving the message cannot relate to the person delivering the message (10).  The MADD campaign suffers greatly from the fact that its messenger is a parent – the very definition of which is someone to whom a teenager does not directly relate.

            More often than not, teenagers feel misunderstood by the adults in their lives.  This is especially true for today’s teens, who are all too aware that with recent astronomical advances in technology – smartphones, personal computers, social media – they are leading lives entirely removed from the worlds in which their parents grew up.  As a result, teenagers are likely to believe that parents cannot possibly understand the situations in which they are placed, nor can parents understand why teens make the decisions they do.  The result is that teenagers do not see mothers as people who have been in their position before, but rather as authority figures that not only control their lives, but do so even though they cannot understand them. 

Teens who are exposed to the messages of the MADD campaign will not relate to the campaigns messengers, namely, as the MADD acronym implies – mothers.  Instead, teens will continue to see these messengers as authority figures who are consistently telling them what to do and how to live their lives.  The result is that instead of listening to the message and adhering to its advice, many teenagers will instead want to do the exact opposite of what they are told.  In other words, it will lead to psychological reactance.  By telling teens what not to do, MADD effectively threatens to eliminate their freedom and autonomy.  This threat to freedom in turn awakens teens, who are then impelled “to restore the particular freedom that was threatened” (11).  The end result is the exact opposite of what the MADD campaign intended, because telling teens not to do something only serves as a catalyst for their desire to engage in that very behavior.  Combining this with an authoritative, unrelatable messenger, only serves to exacerbate the problem, and increase the likelihood that psychological reactance will come into play. 

An Alternative Intervention – the designated driver movement

             

            The Designated Driver Movement is an alternative public health campaign with the same stated goal as MADD – preventing drunken driving.  It will center on a pledge signed by teenagers.  The pledge will not ask teens to promise never to drink and drive, but rather will accept the fact that even teens who are not drinking, will likely be around alcohol – whether it be through their peers or through other adults in their lives.  By signing the pledge, teens will join a movement – the Designated Driver Movement. Signing the pledge will result in two concrete actions: first, they will receive a wallet-sized membership ID card acknowledging them as a member of the movement.  Second, they will immediately be sent a password to log onto restricted, members only sections of the Designated Driver Movement’s website.

This website will shift the focus from the negative consequences of drunk driving, to the positive results of making smarter choices. The premise is that teens will acknowledge that it is important to always have a designated driver, or plans for alternate transportation if impaired driving will be a concern.  To that effect, it will create a network of teens that are willing to sign up as designated drivers.  These teens will take shifts, one or two nights a month, where they dedicate themselves to being on-call, and available.  The idea is not for these “on call” teens to be the first resort, but should a teen find themselves with no other options, they can call the designated driver on-call center, and they will be provided a ride home, no questions asked.

It is important that a drunken driving website dedicated toward teens not simply assume that all teens drink, or want to drink. To that end, the website will also include alternative options for those teens that choose not to drink, or not to drink on a particular night out.  Additionally, so as not to encourage bad habits, the second part of the Designated Driver Movement website will be a public teen forum whereby teens can earn “points” by reporting good behavior, such as assigning their own designated driver for the night, or taking away a drunken friend’s keys.  Once a teen has amassed a certain number of points, they can trade them in for a number of prizes, such as movie tickets, or electronics accessories. 

 Additionally, the website will be devoid of adult influence.  All messages will be written by teens, and all pictures and videos will be of teens that have already joined “the movement”.  The videos will explain the importance of the movement, the potential dangers of drunk driving, and the available options for avoiding unsafe situations.

Addressing Critique #1: How the Designated Driver Movement invokes core values that are important to teens   

           

It is certainly true that no two teenagers are alike – each teenager has his own preferences, interests, likes and dislikes.  However, that does not mean that there are not core elements that all teens share.  This is especially true when it comes to core values.  The core values that are important to one teenager, are important to his peers as well.  These core values are not a mystery, they are rather clear: at their core, teens want independence and autonomy, and they value rebellion.  Not only are these core values relevant to all teens generally, they are especially represented by driving.  To any teen, driving represents freedom and autonomy as it gives them control over their lives that they never had before.

            The Designated Driver Movement, DDM for short, is built around many of the core values that are most important to teens: freedom, independence, autonomy, and rebellion.  The MADD campaign restricts freedom because it is focused only on preventing those who are drunk from driving at all, without providing alternatives.  DDM, on the other hand, recognizes that teen driving is one of the most fundamental expressions of teen independence and autonomy.  Teens that join DDM join a peer community that promises to act responsibly, while at the same time remaining independent from the adults in their lives.

It is for that reason that peers, not adults, serve as designated drivers for the DDM movement.  The result of DDM is that teens are able to rely on one another and remain an independent, autonomous peer group. In fact, by providing an alternative option for teens in unsafe situations, DDM effectively increases teen independence.  Expanding the options available to teens allows them to reach decisions on their own terms.  This act of making their own decisions will be, for teens, a fundamental expression of both their freedom and their independence.

            The third core value addressed by the Designated Driver Movement is rebellion.  Joining a movement, and identifying as part of that movement is an expression of rebellion against the status quo. Teens that join DDM are rebelling against the unsafe situations in which they often find themselves. Many young people are often embarrassed to speak up when a situation gets worrisome, because they fear how they will be viewed by their peers.  Joining the movement is also a rebellion against that fear.  It is a declaration that they will not be paralyzed by what others think of them, and will not put themselves in danger.  Instead, they will take accountability for their actions, and refuse to accept already established social norms.

Addressing critique #2: DDM is a group-level intervention

            While the MADD campaign focuses entirely on individual drunken drivers, DDM turns the focus away from the individual level and brings it back to the group level.   DDM does this by creating a community.  Individuals who sign the pledge or become members of DDM are not simply deciding to change their own, individual behavior.  Rather, they are committing to sharing these changes in behavior with a virtual community of teens who have all made the same pledge.  Importantly, the community aspect of DDM does not end when teens sign up. Once they have joined the DDM community, the public forum keeps them active and involved, while providing incentives for those that do.  Signing the DDM pledge means identifying as part of a wider peer circle.  The Designated Driver Movement, therefore, aims not to change the attitude of individual teens one at a time, but rather to create a community that pledges to change its attitude as a group. 

            Importantly, this attitude change won’t affect just the individual members of the DDM community, but rather will spread – creating a wholesale attitude change for teens in general.  This is similar to the rise in popularity of Hush Puppies as described in Malcolm Gladwell’s book, The Tipping Point.  These shoes suddenly became hip around 1994/1995 when they had previously been going out of style. This happened even though no one was deliberately trying to make them a trend. Rather, the first few kids who started wearing Hush Puppies again, “simple wore the shoes when they went to clubs or cafes . . . and in so doing exposed other people to their fashion sense. They infected them with the Hush Puppies ‘virus’ (12).  The goal of DDM is similar, it aims to infect teens with an attitude against drinking and driving – an anti-drunk driving ‘virus’.  Changing the attitude of the group at this level, will lead to individual attitude shifts as well.  Just as other kids starting wearing Hush Puppies, other teens will want to join the Designated Driver Movement.

Addressing Critique #3: The use of relatable messengers reduces psychological reactance

           

            There are very few things that teens like less than being told what to do. This is especially true when the people telling them what to do are those that have already been doing it their whole lives.  Therefore, telling teens not to do something will only make them want to do it more.  As cited above, this theory is termed psychological reactance.  DDM is built with these principles in mind. Although the basic, fundamental idea behind DDM is to prevent teens from driving drunk or from being in a car with a drunk driver, it does not do this by explicitly stating “don’t drink and drive”.  Instead, it provides safer options for teens that are placed in unsafe situations.  By providing options instead of mandating certain actions, DDM avoids inducing psychological reactance, because it avoids telling teens how not to act.  In addition, DDM teens are able to maintain their own personal agency because it is they themselves that decide to sign the pledge and become part of the DDM community.

            Removing all adult influence from the website and having teens as its visual face, also serves to reduce psychological reactance.  This is because the messages of DDM will be delivered by people with whom new members can relate.  Teens feel that parents, such as those involved in MADD, are out of touch with their world and don’t understand where teens are coming from.  The teen messengers who are visible on DDM’s website are part of the exact audience that DDM is trying to reach.  Psychological reactance is reduced because teens joining DDM see themselves as similar to the messengers presenting the ideals of the movement, and because   “similarity increase[s] the force toward persuasion by increasing liking” (10).     In other words, DDM’s message is more likely to be accepted than MADD’s because through their similarities, its messengers become more likable and therefore are more persuasive. 

           

Conclusion

            The approach to any public health campaign requires an understanding of how messages are presented, and how target audiences receive those messages.  MADD fails to do this in a number of ways.   If, instead of focusing on negative consequences MADD focused on positive alternative options, as DDM does, it would present its goals as increasing freedom and autonomy, rather than restricting it.  MADD also falls short because it fails to recognize that teens identify as part of peer groups, with common ideals and goals.  Was MADD to treat them as a group, and create a community of like-minded teens, like DDM, it could change the attitude toward drunk driving as a whole.  Individual attitude changes will surely follow.  Finally, the use of likable, relatable messengers increases the effectiveness of any campaign.  If the messages are delivered by people with whom the audience can identify, the audience is more likely to apply those messages to their particular situation.  MADD would do well to take an approach more like DDMs – have peers deliver the message to the intended audience.  While MADD’s goal is noble, its approach is flawed.  It would do well to learn from social and behavioral theory so as to build a more effective campaign against drunk driving.  

References

1.       Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Injury Prevention and Control: Motor Vehicle Safety. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

2.      Mothers against Drunk Driving. Mission Statement.  Mothers against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/about-us/mission/

3.      Mothers against Drunk Driving. Goals and Strategies. Mothers against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/about-us/madd-goals.html

4.      Menashe CL, Siegel M. The power of a frame: an analysis of newspaper coverage of tobacco issues – United States, 1985—1996. Journal of Health Communication 1998; 3(4):307-325.

5.      Jacobson P. D., Wasserman, J., & Raube, K. The politics of antismoking legislation. 1993. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 18, 787­ 819.

6.      Mothers against Drunk Driving. Drunk Driving. Mothers against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/

7.      Mothers against Drunk Driving. Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. Mothers against Drunk Driving. http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/campaign/

8.     Cialdini R, Trost M. Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance.  In: Gardner L, Gilbert D, Fiske S, eds. The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, 1998.

9.      Brehm, J. W. A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press, 1996

10.  Silvia, P. J. Deflecting reactance: The role of similarity in increasing compliance and reducing

resistance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2005; 27, 277-284.

11.   Brehm Jack W. Psychological Reactance: Theory and Applications.  In: Srull T, ed.  Advances in Consumer Research Volume 16: Association for Consumer Research, Pages 72-75.

12.  Introduction. In: Gladwell M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2000, pp3-14.