Well, if I need to guess how many of the 30-40% people who disagree with the seatbelt law would use seatbelts if not mandated, and are now not using them to spite their own face, I am guessing a very low figure (not a large amount of people). Lower than the amount of people who were not using seatbelts and are now using them if for no other reason than to save themselves a fine at least.
It doesn't have to be larger than the number of people who use a seat belt because of the law, only the number of people who use a seat belt because this campaign was more effective than an alternative campaign that isn't so antagonistic, e.g. one that emphasizes the risk of death rather than the risk of fine, which you would generally expect to be a bigger motivator anyway.
And the better campaign may in particular be more effective at getting the people who weren't wearing their seat belts originally and still don't under this campaign, because they're more likely to be the defiant ones to begin with, so they're more likely to be receptive to a less antagonistic campaign.
You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other.
But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law.
>You're asking for something you have to know nobody has polled on one way or the other.
Yeah, since you're arguing that the campaign was bad because people disagreed with it and stating it as a fact.
>But the number of people who disagreed with the law to begin with is probably a pretty good approximation for the number of people who disagreed with a campaign which is effectively promoting the law.
> Yeah, since you're arguing that the campaign was bad because people disagreed with it and stating it as a fact.
It is a fact. I've met people who do this.
> In what way?
There are people who disagree with a law that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice. There are people who disagree with an ad campaign that orders them to do something they think should be a personal choice.
If you had to propose a hypothesis about whether a correlation exists between these two groups, what would it be?
If the only reason why people react badly to the campaign is the fact that they disagree with the seatbelt law in general, then the whole argument about whether or not the campaign was too aggressive is moot. They hate the campaign because of the law, not because of what the sign says.
