Here are the findings/thoughts of attendees from the last New Practice session with Prof Beattie:

The big research issue comes up first and it will be interesting to track the professor as he seeks to link implicit attitude testing (IAT) to behaviour change using the Tesco database. If IAT is more predictive of behaviour change than Explicit attitude testing (EAT) then it may change the research that is commissioned.

Here are the notes

Professor Geoffrey Beattie – Feedback notes.

Overall Implications

-        There are big implications for research.  Should we be using more Implicit Attitude Testing than Explicit in understanding the audience and the issues, testing communications and evaluating success?  If so which tests are reliable, who and how can we implement this?

-        There are implications for background research into what are the correct behaviour triggers we should be working with in the advertising.  What should the content of the advertising be to stimulate replacement behaviour rather than triggering bad behaviour.  Decoding past communications, language and behaviour to understand this might necessitate a greater emphasis on upfront research into the subject.

-        There are implications for the execution of advertising.  How to get an authentic message across.  What are the correct gestures?  Getting the casting right.  Testing the implicit communication of films before release.

-        Is IAT (Implicit attitude test) more predictive of behaviour change than EAT (explicit attitude test? Are there case histories? Feedback from Prof. Beattie on his research with Tesco will be important.  Is there a research co. that we can enrol to help develop a methodology to test this?

-        The next phase of professor Beattie’s work will be interesting to follow. Working with Tesco he has access to the largest behavioural database in the UK so the potential exists to correlate IAT with behavioural change. If there is a better correlation between IAT and EAT and behaviour change it could have significant impact on the market research industry.

Group Feedback

Group 1 –  (PR) Dan, Rozanne, Ian T, Emma,

How could we incorporate “unconscious gesture” or replicas into ads?  Is it a bit “1984/big brother” in the conventional sense, to use?

How can we adapt our research techniques to incorporate analysis of body gestures?

Understanding implicit attitudes has real implications for public sector behaviour change campaigns.

How to you change implicit attitudes when they’re hiding behind explicit behaviour and attitudes?

Has anyone approached a campaign based on implicit attitudes and also on the power of non verbal comms?

Implications

Better understand the implicit attitudes – otherwise we base campaigns on preaching to the “explicitly converted”!

Should we add another target audience with different considerations to our brief?  How do we reach the “complacent ones” – the cognitively dissonant ones.

We’ve assumed that negative responses to communications motivate positive behaviour change, but need to consider an emotional response which can lead to regressive behaviour – eg., fear leading to smoking, drinking, crime.

Only use people as spokespeople who really believe in the campaign – otherwise their gestures will undermine communication.

Be mindful of gestures and non-verbal communications in any face to face settings – can help understand the audience (journalist).

In press conferences – try and make sure gestures are “on message” and match the verbal communications.

Group 2.   (Research) Fiona, Damien, Hilary, James F

No written response but verbal response which reinforces the need to:

-        Learn more about how to use IAT (Implicit Attitude Testing) in research. In particular ensure the research is good quality.

-        Look at how/whether IAT is more predictive of behaviour change.

-        Look at the implications for evaluation.

Group 3.   (Planning) Simon D, Chris T,  Andrew L

Performance isn’t spontaneous – how does one get a reliable “gesture” led communication when the “best-process” is not spontaneous.

Are the behaviour changes we try to campaign on so deeply held that it takes decades to elicit widespread change?

Group 4.  (Client Teams) Stephen D, Lisa, Paul T

Assess Client and supplier reactions by watching their gestures, and internal meetings

There are implications for the research we do.  Are quantitative attitude surveys measuring the wrong thing?

In TV advertising – can we use real people not actors?    We should look at rushes with this in mind.

Group 5.  (Integration). Matt, Gill, Tamsin, Emma, Andrew LF

Using actors and getting the gestures right for greater effectiveness.

Many government ads, not using actors, so choosing clips with the most believable gesturing.

Channels – what about the choice when there is a low budget, ie., no TV.

We should build implicit measures into evaluation.

Review evaluation methodology and tools to include explicit/implicit measures.

Which channel is best measure of implicit/explicit, does this correlate to messages best consumed on own/in crowds.

Implications

Record focus groups.  Plan on implicit behaviour rather than explicit behaviour.

Understand the implicit v explicit triggers to better know how to change behaviour.

When do we revert to implicit behaviour over explicit behaviour and vice versa.

Group 6 (Content). Juwon, David, Martin

Is acting always a lie? – should we avoid it and lean towards graphic/animation for example or work to improve it ?

Performance beyond comms.

Interpretation of data will always be key and is currently an important part of the process.

Challenges methodology of phone/questionnaire evaluation.