Effects of Individual Memes on Attitudinal and Behavior Influence

This report investigates the impact of individual memes on attitudinal and behavior influence towards driving behavior. Findings reveal that certain memes have a significant effect on conscious attitude and behavior modification. Recommendations are provided for effective social marketing strategies.

Effects of individual memes on attitudinal and behavior influence on people
i

Table of contents
Contents
Executive summary....................................................................................................................................iii
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1
Research question........................................................................................................................................1
Findings for research question four.............................................................................................................2
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................4
Marketing recommendations.......................................................................................................................5
References...................................................................................................................................................6
Appendix 1: Post Hoc test...........................................................................................................................7
Appendix 2: ANOVA table.......................................................................................................................12
ii

Executive summary
The main aim of this report was to investigate whether there were differences in the ability of
individual memes to affect the attitudinal and behavioral influence modification change towards
driving behavior. This aim was met by testing three different null and alternative hypotheses. All
types of individual memes as from one way ANOVA and LSD Post hoc test showed that watch,
GF, Floor is, accelerate, spongebob, headache and roll safe had statistically significant difference
on attitudinal conscious and behavior modification change in people’s driving behavior. It was
then recommended that those types of individual memes that did not have impact on influencing
change in respondents’ driving behavior such as drake pie graph and rose should not be used
much over those i.e. (accelerate and floor is among others) that caused change.
iii

Introduction
Road carnage has been one of the major threat among the road users widely caused by various
factors search as drinking and driving, overworking and driving for longer time over long
distances but speeding had been leading and taken the center stage (Schmidt, 2015) and sparked
the attention of researchers. Road crashes from other causes were relatively not severe as
compared to those from speeding. Being that moving vehicles have large body masses, moving
them at relatively high speed will make them have greater rate of change of momentum and thus
large effects on collision. The large resultant force that comes with collision at high speed will
result to great effects and severity of injuries and possibly loss of lives in the process. Due to
that, relevant authorities in charge of transport and traffics through social marketers have raised
concern and developed strategies of creating awareness on the effects of speed on road accidents
with the aim of minimizing and completely eradicating the menace by reaching out to the
targeted people. Several methods had been employed and reports from researches revealed
speeding as the major cause of road accidents (Scott-Parker et al, 2015). From the reports,
majority of those involved in crashes due to speeding were young age. As a result of that,
relevant authorities in charge of security and traffics acquired the idea of technology
advancement in the current generation and the platforms (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
among others) for which the young generations who were involved in seeping cases could be
reached out. They therefore decided to engage the social marketers who develop short messages
with attractive pictures (memes) passing out the message about the effects of over speeding. This
report was therefore developed to address the effects of memes in passing the intended message
to the social media users on speeding. It reported on whether there were differences in the ability
of individual memes to affect the attitude/conscious and behavioral influence modification
change towards driving behavior.
Research question
This report was answering the following research question:
1. Are there differences in ability of the individual memes to affect conscious and influence
behavior modification change?
1

Findings for research question four
Effects of individual memes on their ability to influence driving behavior of people and their
consciousness was tested using LSD post hoc analysis to check for the intergroup differences.
One way ANOVA was used to check for general statistical significance of all types of individual
memes used by social marketers. The following hypotheses had to be tested:
Hypothesis 1
H0: Images used did not influence the respondents to be less likely to speed while driving on
behavior modification effects.
H1: Images used influenced the respondents to be less likely to speed while driving on behavior
modification effects.
Hypothesis 2
H0: Individual memes did not influence people to be conscious for attitude effects
H1: Individual memes influenced people to be conscious for attitude effects.
Table 1: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Influence
Between Groups 64.192 9 7.132 2.494 .011
Within Groups 457.484 160 2.859
Total 521.676 169
Conscious
Between Groups 54.533 9 6.059 2.174 .026
Within Groups 445.991 160 2.787
Total 500.524 169
From the test conducted, the result showed from the significance value by one way ANOVA
(F=2.494, p=0.011) on influence which was much less than the p-value (i.e. 0.05). Due to that,
all groups of individual memes showed to be statistically significant and rejected the null
hypothesis in hypothesis one and concluded that images used in the memes did influence the
respondents to be less likely to speed while driving on behavior modification. Additionally,
second hypothesis revealed that all groups of individual memes had statistical significance of
2

(F=2.174, p=0.26) and the value was less than the p-value (0.05) thus concluded that individual
memes influenced people to be conscious while driving.
Hypothesis 3
H0: There were no differences in the ability of individual memes on their effects to conscious and
influence on behavior modification change
H1: There were differences in the ability of individual memes on their effects to conscious and
influence on behavior modification change
(Refer to appendix 1: Post Hoc test table)
In order to identify particular group of memes that had effects on influence, advanced test was
conducted and posted the individual groups. Roll safe showed to have statistical significance
difference with watch as individual groups of memes confirmed by statistical significance of
(0.04) which was less than the p-value (0.05). Roll safe also showed to have difference of effects
on influence on behavior modification change with GF since they had significance value less
than p-value (0.05), another statistical significance difference was shown between roll safe and
floor is with significance value (0.016) less than the p-value (0.05). Roll safe and accelerate also
showed to be statistically significant difference with significance value less than (0.05),
Spongebob and roll safe also show to have statistically significant difference with the
significance value (0.029<p-value=0.05). Lastly, roll safe and headache showed to have
statistical significance difference with significance value 0.044 less than p-value (0.05) while the
rest such as drake, pie graph and rose showed to have no statistical significant difference as they
had significance values greater than p-value (0.05). In that effect therefore, some memes showed
difference in their abilities of their effects on influence of behavior modification change while
others did not.
Effects of all types of individual memes were also checked where roll safe and watch had
statistical significance of (0.035) which showed that they indeed had differences in terms of their
abilities to influence people to be conscious when driving. Roll safe and GF also had statistical
significant differences with statistical significance of (0.008). This also confirmed that there was
a difference in terms of their influence on consciousness of drivers’ attitude. Accelerate and roll
safe showed statistical significant difference as evident by significance value of (0.001). The
remaining types of individual memes showed to have had no effects on influencing people’s
3

consciousness and attitude on their driving behaviors. Those individual memes that had no
statistical significance when tested for their effect of influence on consciousness were Drake
with significance value (0.391), floor is with significance value of (0.052), Pie graph with
significance value of (0.446), Spongebob with significance value of (0.086), headache with
significance value of (0.295) and Rose with significance difference of (0.767).
From the results displayed above, some of the best memes that displayed positive results in
capturing the attention of the respondents and influencing their conscious attitude in the
modification of driving behaviors on social media marketing were watch, GF, floor is and
accelerate.
Memes were in use since late 1970s but it did not gain popularity then since social media was not
widely spread (Frazer and Carlson, 2017). Apparently, social media and internet have become so
common that population of internet users has been growing too fast daily (Fettweis, 2014).
People use internet for different purposes such as shopping, communication and entertainment
among others. The social media community is mostly composed of youthful aged people and
therefore reaching out to them must be through what they love visiting the most and that was the
internet. All forms of campaigns touching on this age group can only be effective if their favorite
channels were used. Being that social media can be used as a way of communication,
communicating to the youthful age would be easier when internet memes were used. Reports
showed that youthful age were the most involved in the cases of speeding (Körber et al, 2016;
Schultz et al, 2016). The results from this report then showed that in order to modify the
behaviors of the respondents on driving, some types of memes such as accelerate, floor is and
roll safe among others were to be used. These individual memes needed to be created with lots of
humor that will capture the attention of the social media users and pass the message at the same
time. The meme structure should be simple to understand with attractive pictures and precise to
the point. When made long the readers (targeted group) would get bored along the way and fail
to finish reading thus failing to get the message intended to be passed.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from this report that individual memes used had difference on the impact
they created on attitudinal conscious and behavior of the respondents on their driving behaviors’
modifications. From the discussed results, not all types of individual memes used by social
marketers had impact on both conscious of people and influenced modification of change in
4

driving behavior. Some did only have impact on influence i.e. (Spongebob) but not on conscious
while others also only had impact on conscious attitude but not on influence. Some of the types
of individual memes used by social marketers on social media to create impact of change in
driving behavior of drivers did not have impact at all on both levels. Such types of individual
memes included drake pie graph and rose while individual memes like accelerate impacted both
the influence and consciousness of people’s attitude in their driving behaviors and therefore was
the most powerful type of individual memes.
Marketing recommendations
It is therefore recommended that among different types of memes used, some of them such as
roll safe, watch, GF, Floor is, Accelerate, Spongebob and headache were supposed to be used
more in social marketing since they had high impact on attitudinal conscious and behavior
modification change in the respondents driving behavior. Among other types of individual
memes, drake and rose were advised not to be used by social marketers since they had no effect
on both conscious attitude and influence on the modification change in respondent driving
behaviors. They were probably being overlooked by the social media users but not paid much
attention to thus lacked impact.Those types of memes that did not show to have impact on
influencing driving behavior change should be abolished.
5

References
Fettweis, G.P., 2014. The tactile internet: Applications and challenges. IEEE Vehicular
Technology Magazine, 9(1), pp.64-70.
Frazer, R. and Carlson, B., 2017. Indigenous Memes and the Invention of a People. Social
Media+ Society, 3(4), p.2056305117738993.
Körber, M., Gold, C., Lechner, D. and Bengler, K., 2016. The influence of age on the take-over
of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transportation research part F: traffic
psychology and behaviour, 39, pp.19-32.
Schmidt, A.T., 2015. Driver education critical in helping young drivers to survive. Highway
Engineering Australia, 47(1), p.2.
Schultz, E.S., Hallberg, J., Bellander, T., Bergström, A., Bottai, M., Chiesa, F., Gustafsson, P.M.,
Gruzieva, O., Thunqvist, P., Pershagen, G. and Melén, E., 2016. Early-life exposure to traffic-
related air pollution and lung function in adolescence. American journal of respiratory and
critical care medicine, 193(2), pp.171-177.
Scott-Parker, B., Goode, N. and Salmon, P., 2015. The driver, the road, the rules… and the rest?
A systems-based approach to young driver road safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 74,
pp.297-305.
6

Appendix 1: Post Hoc test
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Dependent
Variable
(I) Meme (J) Meme Mean
Differenc
e (I-J)
Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Conscious
Roll safe
Drake .493 .574 .391 -.64 1.63
Watch 1.188* .560 .035 .08 2.29
GF 1.483* .549 .008 .40 2.57
Floor is 1.074 .549 .052 -.01 2.16
Pie graph .476 .623 .446 -.76 1.71
Accellerate 2.104* .638 .001 .85 3.36
Spongebob .938 .544 .086 -.14 2.01
Headache .795 .757 .295 -.70 2.29
Rose .173 .582 .767 -.98 1.32
Drake
Roll safe -.493 .574 .391 -1.63 .64
Watch .694 .542 .202 -.38 1.77
GF .990 .531 .064 -.06 2.04
Floor is .581 .531 .275 -.47 1.63
Pie graph -.017 .608 .978 -1.22 1.18
Accellerate 1.611* .622 .011 .38 2.84
Spongebob .444 .525 .399 -.59 1.48
Headache .302 .744 .686 -1.17 1.77
Rose -.320 .565 .571 -1.44 .79
Watch
Roll safe -1.188* .560 .035 -2.29 -.08
Drake -.694 .542 .202 -1.77 .38
GF .295 .516 .568 -.72 1.31
Floor is -.114 .516 .826 -1.13 .91
Pie graph -.712 .595 .233 -1.89 .46
Accellerate .917 .610 .135 -.29 2.12
Spongebob -.250 .510 .625 -1.26 .76
Headache -.393 .733 .593 -1.84 1.06
Rose -1.015 .551 .067 -2.10 .07
GF Roll safe -1.483* .549 .008 -2.57 -.40
Drake -.990 .531 .064 -2.04 .06
7

Watch -.295 .516 .568 -1.31 .72
Floor is -.409 .503 .418 -1.40 .59
Pie graph -1.007 .584 .087 -2.16 .15
Accellerate .621 .599 .301 -.56 1.80
Spongebob -.545 .498 .275 -1.53 .44
Headache -.688 .725 .344 -2.12 .74
Rose -1.310* .539 .016 -2.37 -.25
Floor is
Roll safe -1.074 .549 .052 -2.16 .01
Drake -.581 .531 .275 -1.63 .47
Watch .114 .516 .826 -.91 1.13
GF .409 .503 .418 -.59 1.40
Pie graph -.598 .584 .308 -1.75 .56
Accellerate 1.030 .599 .087 -.15 2.21
Spongebob -.136 .498 .785 -1.12 .85
Headache -.279 .725 .700 -1.71 1.15
Rose -.901 .539 .097 -1.97 .16
Pie
graph
Roll safe -.476 .623 .446 -1.71 .76
Drake .017 .608 .978 -1.18 1.22
Watch .712 .595 .233 -.46 1.89
GF 1.007 .584 .087 -.15 2.16
Floor is .598 .584 .308 -.56 1.75
Accellerate 1.628* .668 .016 .31 2.95
Spongebob .462 .579 .427 -.68 1.61
Headache .319 .783 .684 -1.23 1.86
Rose -.303 .615 .623 -1.52 .91
Acceller
ate
Roll safe -2.104* .638 .001 -3.36 -.85
Drake -1.611* .622 .011 -2.84 -.38
Watch -.917 .610 .135 -2.12 .29
GF -.621 .599 .301 -1.80 .56
Floor is -1.030 .599 .087 -2.21 .15
Pie graph -1.628* .668 .016 -2.95 -.31
Spongebob -1.167 .595 .051 -2.34 .01
Headache -1.310 .794 .101 -2.88 .26
Rose -1.931* .629 .003 -3.17 -.69
Spongeb
ob
Roll safe -.938 .544 .086 -2.01 .14
Drake -.444 .525 .399 -1.48 .59
8

Watch .250 .510 .625 -.76 1.26
GF .545 .498 .275 -.44 1.53
Floor is .136 .498 .785 -.85 1.12
Pie graph -.462 .579 .427 -1.61 .68
Accellerate 1.167 .595 .051 -.01 2.34
Headache -.143 .721 .843 -1.57 1.28
Rose -.765 .534 .154 -1.82 .29
Headach
e
Roll safe -.795 .757 .295 -2.29 .70
Drake -.302 .744 .686 -1.77 1.17
Watch .393 .733 .593 -1.06 1.84
GF .688 .725 .344 -.74 2.12
Floor is .279 .725 .700 -1.15 1.71
Pie graph -.319 .783 .684 -1.86 1.23
Accellerate 1.310 .794 .101 -.26 2.88
Spongebob .143 .721 .843 -1.28 1.57
Rose -.622 .750 .408 -2.10 .86
Rose
Roll safe -.173 .582 .767 -1.32 .98
Drake .320 .565 .571 -.79 1.44
Watch 1.015 .551 .067 -.07 2.10
GF 1.310* .539 .016 .25 2.37
Floor is .901 .539 .097 -.16 1.97
Pie graph .303 .615 .623 -.91 1.52
Accellerate 1.931* .629 .003 .69 3.17
Spongebob .765 .534 .154 -.29 1.82
Headache .622 .750 .408 -.86 2.10
Influence
Roll safe
Drake 1.125 .581 .055 -.02 2.27
Watch 1.175* .567 .040 .05 2.30
GF 2.034* .556 .000 .94 3.13
Floor is 1.352* .556 .016 .26 2.45
Pie graph .740 .631 .243 -.51 1.99
Accellerate 2.375* .646 .000 1.10 3.65
Spongebob 1.212* .550 .029 .12 2.30
Headache 1.554* .766 .044 .04 3.07
Rose .654 .589 .268 -.51 1.82
Drake Roll safe -1.125 .581 .055 -2.27 .02
9

Watch .050 .549 .928 -1.03 1.13
GF .909 .537 .093 -.15 1.97
Floor is .227 .537 .673 -.83 1.29
Pie graph -.385 .615 .533 -1.60 .83
Accellerate 1.250* .630 .049 .01 2.49
Spongebob .087 .532 .870 -.96 1.14
Headache .429 .753 .570 -1.06 1.92
Rose -.471 .572 .412 -1.60 .66
Watch
Roll safe -1.175* .567 .040 -2.30 -.05
Drake -.050 .549 .928 -1.13 1.03
GF .859 .522 .102 -.17 1.89
Floor is .177 .522 .735 -.85 1.21
Pie graph -.435 .602 .472 -1.62 .76
Accellerate 1.200 .617 .054 -.02 2.42
Spongebob .037 .517 .943 -.98 1.06
Headache .379 .743 .611 -1.09 1.85
Rose -.521 .558 .352 -1.62 .58
GF
Roll safe -2.034* .556 .000 -3.13 -.94
Drake -.909 .537 .093 -1.97 .15
Watch -.859 .522 .102 -1.89 .17
Floor is -.682 .510 .183 -1.69 .33
Pie graph -1.294* .592 .030 -2.46 -.13
Accellerate .341 .607 .575 -.86 1.54
Spongebob -.822 .504 .105 -1.82 .17
Headache -.481 .734 .514 -1.93 .97
Rose -1.380* .546 .012 -2.46 -.30
Floor is Roll safe -1.352* .556 .016 -2.45 -.26
Drake -.227 .537 .673 -1.29 .83
Watch -.177 .522 .735 -1.21 .85
GF .682 .510 .183 -.33 1.69
Pie graph -.612 .592 .303 -1.78 .56
Accellerate 1.023 .607 .094 -.18 2.22
Spongebob -.140 .504 .781 -1.14 .86
10

Headache .201 .734 .784 -1.25 1.65
Rose -.698 .546 .203 -1.78 .38
Pie
graph
Roll safe -.740 .631 .243 -1.99 .51
Drake .385 .615 .533 -.83 1.60
Watch .435 .602 .472 -.76 1.62
GF 1.294* .592 .030 .13 2.46
Floor is .612 .592 .303 -.56 1.78
Accellerate 1.635* .677 .017 .30 2.97
Spongebob .472 .587 .423 -.69 1.63
Headache .813 .793 .307 -.75 2.38
Rose -.086 .623 .890 -1.32 1.14
Acceller
ate
Roll safe -2.375* .646 .000 -3.65 -1.10
Drake -1.250* .630 .049 -2.49 -.01
Watch -1.200 .617 .054 -2.42 .02
GF -.341 .607 .575 -1.54 .86
Floor is -1.023 .607 .094 -2.22 .18
Pie graph -1.635* .677 .017 -2.97 -.30
Spongebob -1.163 .602 .055 -2.35 .03
Headache -.821 .804 .309 -2.41 .77
Rose -1.721* .638 .008 -2.98 -.46
Spongeb
ob
Roll safe -1.212* .550 .029 -2.30 -.12
Drake -.087 .532 .870 -1.14 .96
Watch -.037 .517 .943 -1.06 .98
GF .822 .504 .105 -.17 1.82
Floor is .140 .504 .781 -.86 1.14
Pie graph -.472 .587 .423 -1.63 .69
Accellerate 1.163 .602 .055 -.03 2.35
Headache .342 .730 .640 -1.10 1.78
Rose -.558 .541 .304 -1.63 .51
Headach
e
Roll safe -1.554* .766 .044 -3.07 -.04
Drake -.429 .753 .570 -1.92 1.06
Watch -.379 .743 .611 -1.85 1.09
GF .481 .734 .514 -.97 1.93
11

Floor is -.201 .734 .784 -1.65 1.25
Pie graph -.813 .793 .307 -2.38 .75
Accellerate .821 .804 .309 -.77 2.41
Spongebob -.342 .730 .640 -1.78 1.10
Rose -.899 .759 .238 -2.40 .60
Rose
Roll safe -.654 .589 .268 -1.82 .51
Drake .471 .572 .412 -.66 1.60
Watch .521 .558 .352 -.58 1.62
GF 1.380* .546 .012 .30 2.46
Floor is .698 .546 .203 -.38 1.78
Pie graph .086 .623 .890 -1.14 1.32
Accellerate 1.721* .638 .008 .46 2.98
Spongebob .558 .541 .304 -.51 1.63
Headache .899 .759 .238 -.60 2.40
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Figure 1: Mean plot of Conscious
12

Figure 2: Mean plot of Influence
Appendix 2: ANOVA table
One way ANOVA tested the following two hypotheses;
Hypothesis 1
H0: Images used did not influence the respondents to be less likely to speed while driving on
behavior modification effects.
13

H1: Images used influenced the respondents to be less likely to speed while driving on behavior
modification effects.
Hypothesis 2
H0: Individual memes did not influence people to be conscious for attitude effects
H1: Individual memes influenced people to be conscious for attitude effects.
Assumptions
o The sample used was obtained from a population that is normally distributed
o The variables had equal variance
o The samples were not interdependent thus independent
o There were random observations within each other.
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Conscious
Between Groups 54.533 9 6.059 2.174 .026
Within Groups 445.991 160 2.787
Total 500.524 169
Influence
Between Groups 64.192 9 7.132 2.494 .011
Within Groups 457.484 160 2.859
Total 521.676 169
14