Attitude Change and The National Drugs Campaign: Essay

Attitude Change and The National Drugs Campaign


Abstract

Attitude change programs permeate through society today, however questions still remain about what increases or decreases the effectiveness of attitude change messages. This essay aims to provide some insight into what factors influence the success of attitude change programs specifically in relation to the recent National Drug Campaign.


The National Drugs Campaign (http://www.drugs.health.gov.au) aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use. The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs.

The campaign consists of four television commercials highlighting the negative consequences of ice, marijuana, speed and ecstasy. There are also posters, brochures, websites and a booklet.

The campaign uses extremely graphic images (http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/ecstasy-television-commercial.html) of people suffering the extreme consequences of drugs.

In analysing the success of attitude change campaigns it is vital to understand what attitudes are and what role persuasion plays in influencing changes. An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor of disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In other words an attitude is the tendency to evaluate a person, concept or group either positively or negatively. Psychologists have identified three important components of attitudes, cognitive, affective and behavioral (Oskamp, 1991). Cognitive components are thoughts or ideas about the attitude object, beliefs. The affective component consists of feelings, moods, and emotions in relation to the attitude object. Lastly the behavioral component of an attitude includes overt actions that people exhibit in relation to the attitude object.

In understanding attitudes it is also necessary to look at the two types of attitudes, implicit and explicit. Implicit attitudes are associations between attitude objects and feelings about them that regulate thoughts and behaviours unconsciously and automatically. Explicit attitudes are conscious attitudes (Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006).

Attitudinal ambivalence is the extent to which an attitude object is associated with conflicting evaluative responses. Ambivalent attitudes include two evaluative dimensions, positive and negative.
Persuasion is a deliberate effort to influence a person or group to adopt a desired behaviour or change an attitude. Characteristics of the source, message, channel and context all affect the persuasiveness of an appeal. The Elaboration Likelihood Model and Heuristic/Systematic Models (Zimbardo, Ebbesen &Maslach, 1969) of persuasion state that persuasion occurs through two routes: central and peripheral. The models state that knowing how to appeal to people requires figuring out the likelihood that they will think much about the argument and identifying the appropriate route that will be most successful.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a variety of persuasive techniques in order to change the attitude of its audience.
The National Drugs Campaign uses a central route processing technique to influence the audience to think carefully about the message and weigh up the arguments presented. However the emotional side of the campaign is appealing to the more peripheral route of processing.
There are two strategies identified in persuasion: Alpha strategies try to persuade others by increasing the approach forces whereas Omega strategies attempt to persuade by decreasing avoidance forces (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The Strategy employed by the National Drugs Campaign is an Alpha approach, they create a strong argument that justify and compel action.
The study of persuasion has been largely influenced by Carl Hovland. In Hovland’s view attitude change can be seen as a response to communication. He identified factors that can affect the persuasiveness of a message. Firstly target characteristics (characteristics of the person who receives the message) includes things such as intelligence, self esteem, mood, receptivity, yielding, age and so on. Secondly Source characteristics, that is, credibility, trustworthiness, likeability and finally message characteristics which is the nature of the message: reason or emotion, repetition, whether both sides of the story are displayed, as this has been shown to produce a more persuasive argument (Greenwald, 1968)
In relation to the National Drugs Campaign the target group is fairly broad however the campaign does acknowledge certain characteristics of the age group for example the party lifestyle. Secondly the campaign uses sources that are relatable to their target audience (adolescents) as well as experts in the field (doctors) which helps to build likeness, credibility and trustworthiness.
The campaign does however lack a two sided argument and this may decrease the success of attitude change on the target audience. The use of a one sided argument can often seem propagandistic in nature and receivers may begin to build barriers or rebel against the source of the message. Thus, two sided messages can provide a double-barrelled strategy where the source gets more support because receivers like one side and dislike the other.

The campaign utilises both rational (logical, scientific, factual evidence) and emotional (fear inducing) messages. The aim of an approach like this is to create inconsistencies between behaviour (drug taking) and attitude (drugs are bad), this tends to be psychologically distressful for those who engage in drug taking activity and creates what is known as cognitive dissonance.

The campaign also provides the desired behaviour, which is one way of reducing the dissonance caused by the ads (Valente, 2002). Dissonance is generally dealt with in two ways: change of attitude or change of behaviour, however the use of defence mechanisms is also sometimes employed by people to deal with the dissonance (i.e. pushing awareness of the dissonant object out of conscious mind).

The idea of defence mechanisms being employed in health communication campaigns have often said to be the result of highly emotional fear inducing ideas. Health promotion campaigns are generally designed to elicit fear however the success of such campaigns remains a question (Cohen, 1964). This idea is certainly not new and was first introduced in a study by Janis and Feshback (1953) regarding dental hygiene and college students.

The study showed that the effects of the campaign were stronger when information was not presented in an overly emotional manner. Students were presented with three different forms of a lecture on tooth decay. Each lecture differed on the amount of fear aroused. When the level of fear was high, the effectiveness of the communication was lower than when fear arousal was low. Janis and Feshback also noted that emotional appeals are also more effective if listeners are provided with concrete recommendations for action (Cohen, 1964).
Other studies have shown that the stronger the fear appeals the higher the production of perceived severity and susceptibility and messages are subsequently more persuasive than low or weak fear appeals (O’Keefe, 2002). However it has been argued that strong fear appeals produce the greatest levels of defensive response (for example denial of likeness to the group or simply ignoring the message)
From such studies no definite rule can be applied however the common belief now is that moderate fear appeals work best and all fear appeals need to include a component of efficacy. Efficacy is therefore a clearly important part in the production of behavior change messages.
Self efficacy plays and important role and has been an important factor in the development of many models of attitude change particularly within the health industry.
Health Belief Model
The Health Belief model (HBM) (Hochbaum, 1958; Rosentstock, 1966 as cited in Weston, Burton & Kowalski, 2006) Suggests that health behaviours are predicted by four factors: The perceive susceptibility, the perceived seriousness, the benefits and barriers of undertaking particular health behaviour and cues to action. (Media campaigns act as cues to action but also highlight risks, seriousness and susceptibility).
Using the National Drugs Campaign as a basis the HBM postulates that a person will take action if: They perceive that drug taking could have a seriously negative affect on them, perceive that if they don’t take drugs they rule out the risk of those negative health risks, they feel they are able to not engage in drug taking behaviour successfully. See http://christinasocialpsych.blogspot.com/2007/08/health-belief-model-concept-map.html for a concept map of the HBM.
Unfortunately many people (particularly those who engage in risky behaviours) experience what is known as optimistic bias (they believe they are less likely to suffer the negative effects of drugs) this also exemplifies attitude ambivalence.
Knowledge Action Model

The ‘Knowledge-Action’ model of behaviour states that knowledge about health is sufficient in motivating individuals towards the healthier alternative. However, this is not always the case and knowledge does not always motivate logical behaviour. (Egger et al, 1999). There is however exceptions to this model, people have the potential to ignore information that is too difficult or anxiety provoking (Egger et al, 1999). This is especially exemplified by smokers and those who engage in drug taking activity.
Theory of Reasoned Action.
The theory of reasoned action, much like the health belief model holds that behaviours stem from behaviour intentions. Behavioural intentions stem from attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes, as we have discussed, are the belief that behaviour will produce a particular outcome. Subjective norms reflect a person’s perception of how others view the particular behaviour.

After viewing each of these models one would conclude that after viewing communication campaigns against drug taking no one would take drugs, however people still do, why? Firstly the campaign might effect explicit rather than implicit attitudes. The explicit attitude towards drugs is negative however the implicit attitude may remain that drugs are fun. Another reason is the attitude behaviour inconsistency which in the case of drugs means many people rationalize their behaviour. There is also the case of optimistic bias in which those who view such emotion filled messages think that would be unlikely to happen to them.

Having said that the National Drugs Campaign has been successful in its first and second phases. As discussed on their website at http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/ statistics suggest that the campaigns messages are being recognized, particularly with reference to drug prevention. We can however conclude with confidence that the success of an attitude change campaign depends largely on the target audience and the attitude you want to change.

References

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (2007). National Drugs Campaign: http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/
Bandura A (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Cohen, A. (1964) Attitude change and social influence. New York: Basic Books


Egger, G. Spark, R. Lawson, J. and Donovan, R. (1999). Health
> > Promotion Strategies and Methods. McGraw-Hill Australia. Roseville.


Glanz, K., Marcus Lewis, F. & Rimer, B.K. (1997). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Institute of Health.


Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. & Lewis, F.M. (2002). Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research and Practice. San Fransisco: Wiley & Sons.

Greenwald, A. (1968) Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press


Hovland, C. & Sherif, M. (1965) Social judgment: assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. Yale U.P: New Haven

Kiesler, C. (1934) Attitude Change: a critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: John Wiley and Sons

Larson, C. U. (2007). Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility. Thomson Wadsworth, California.

O’Keefe, D. (2002) Persuasion: Theory and Research (2nd ed) ___: Sage Publications

Oskamp, C. (1991). Attitudes and opinions (2nd ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Valente, T. (2002). Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. New York: Oxford
> > University Press, Inc.

Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006) Psychology: Australia and New Zealand Edition. Australia: John Wile & Sons.

Zimbardo, P., Ebbesen, E. & Maslach, C. (1969) Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Philippines: Addison Wesley Company

Appendices

Readability
My Blog has fairly high readability. It incorporates headings and links within the main text. The text is easy to read with 1.5 spacing and size 12 Times New Roman font.
Flesch Reading Ease: 37.7
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.2

Online Engagement
My online engagement has included: reading commenting and commenting on others blogs: http://beckpsychblog.blogspot.com/, http://psychcynic.blogspot.com/, http://jo-socialpsych.blogspot.com/. I submitted my blog feed early in the semester and have posted comments seeking comments from others by raising questions for discussion. I have published links and made effective use of multimedia, incorporating a video and two concept maps. I have also added personal information to my blog profile. I would grade this blog around a P+. This blog could have benefited from more post sharing and more sharing with others.

Self Assessment
My blog includes relevant theory and research. I have written in a clear and readable manor. In respect to marking criteria I would grade each of the sections: Theory: C, research : D, and written expression: D. My blog could have benefited from incorporating pictures into the main text. I could have compacted the information within the text better (It’s a little to long).

Health Belief Model: Concept Map

Concept Map: Attitude Change

Ecstasy Television Commercial

One of four of the National Drug Campaign television commercials. Pretty scary stuff. The adds are aimed at the nations youth and use fairly extreme fear appeals to reduce peoples motivation to use drugs. I think the campaign tactics may be more successfull as a preventative tool rather than a persuasive tool to stop those who already take drugs. Most people who have already taken drugs might experience A) Optimistic bias and think the chances of that happening to them are pretty low and justify their actions or B) Use defence mechanisms to help them deal with the anxiety causing content and either ignore the add or discredit its value.

Attitude Change & the National Drugs Campaign

For blog 1 I’m doing the question about attitude change and what factors determine the success of attitude change programs.

My degree is Communications in Public Relations so the concept of attitude change is fairly relevant. Public relations practitioners are often involved in formulating social change programs (recently I can think of: the importance of installing smoke alarms, men’s depression, quit smoking etc). This is an area of great interest to me and something I one day hope to get into. On that note I have chosen the latest in social change campaigns the National Drugs Campaign!!

Drugs are an increasing problem in society and I’m sure one we can all relate to (drugs are so available nearly everyone knows someone who has or does take drugs). The reality is that drugs can ruin lives and often does.

For more information about drugs I found this site helpful: http://www.unodc.org/youthnet/youthnet_youth_drugs.html

The National Drugs Campaign aims to reduce young Australians’ motivation to use illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use.

The campaign also encourages parents to talk with their children about drugs by providing them with practical and up-to-date information about drugs.

If any one wants to check out the website its:

http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/

Questions I wonder about…

• What do you think of the efficacy of anti drug campaigns like this?
• Do you think drug taking is the result of underlying issues, which, if were addressed initially (say by government – via education programs, more free mental health services etc.) would result in less drug taking behaviour.
• Do you think once someone has already developed an addiction they are likely to respond to anti drug campaigns?

Hello there world of the web....