Designated Driver Advertising Campaigns

In the United States, more than 17,000 people died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes during 2003; this figure represented 40% of all traffic-related [Page 236]deaths. One approach to reducing instances of impaired driving is to promote the use of a designated driver, defined as an individual who agrees to remain sober, for example during a party, and thus is able to drive others home safely.

William DeJong and Jay Winsten, exploring mass media approaches in communicating about substance use prevention to American youth, cite the Harvard Alcohol Project as a case in point. The project's key objectives include encouraging the use of designated drivers and shifting social norms about the acceptability of driving after drinking alcohol, yet simultaneously conveying that designated driver programs should not be equated with excessive drinking consumption among passengers. Winsten points to national public opinion polls to assert that the project has had a marked impact on awareness, acceptance, and usage of the designated driver concept.

The results of many mass media programs have been limited, however, reflecting that a clearly defined target market is not always apparent, and many ad campaigns utilize donated (rather than paid) media, thus ads commonly have less desirable placements and reduced production quality. John Lastovicka and colleagues have proposed a lifestyle typology to determine appropriate segments for media efforts, with young males who are “Good Timers” (i.e., heavy partiers with a macho and sensation-seeking orientation) identified as a high-priority target. Furthermore, when assessing the effectiveness of various ad campaigns, a study by Lisa Szykman and colleagues suggests that consumers process anti-drinking-and-driving messages differently depending on the ad's sponsor. A designated driver ad from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is thought to be more credible than a corresponding message from Budweiser because a nonprofit organization is seen to have positive, society-serving motives, whereas a for-profit sponsor infers more negative, self-serving (ulterior) motives that might lead consumers to question the reasons for sponsorship and discount the content of the message. Kevin Boots and Richard Midford found that an Australian designated driver intervention for young adults known as “Pick-a-Skipper” was effective in reducing drinking and driving.

Health behavior models have specified the conditions under which individuals are likely to engage in desired health behaviors. Protection motivation theory, for example, suggests that people will respond to a health threat in the desired direction only if they perceive a severe threat, see themselves as vulnerable, and perceive themselves and the preventative behavior to be efficacious. These theories place emphasis on cognitive processes mediating behavioral change; however, they often ignore the context in which health decisions are made (e.g., sober versus impaired decision making). Additionally, some messaging may actually work counter to the stated goals of advocacy groups. According to reactance theory, whenever we perceive an unfair threat to our freedom of action, we experience a state of reactance—heightened motivation to perform the threatened behavior. Consequently, if adolescents perceive a given communication as an attempt to restrict their freedom (e.g., “Don't drink and drive—it's the law”), the influence attempt may actually increase motivation to perform the very action that it was designed to prevent.

...