Public Awareness Campaigns

A nuanced empirical survey of when public-awareness campaigns work vs fail. Lists spectacular failures (DARE, Scared Straight [actively harmful, $203 cost per dollar], sex ed, diversity training, obesity-stigma) and successes (MADD, seatbelts, advertising, graphic anti-smoking), then honestly grapples with the lack of a clean pattern. Best tentative hypothesis: captive-audience campaigns (DARE, Scared Straight, mandatory diversity training) backfire via resentment (anger/resentment vs fear/disgust), and ends genuinely uncertain — with the memorable coda on society's sanity (we jail drug users but barely run ads; anti-rape ads in only 2 cities; no anti-child-abuse ads).

Quality 68 · Strong. Strong: an honest, evidence-marshaling survey with a genuine portable insight (captive-audience/resentment backfire) but no clean resolution — Scott himself stays uncertain. 68.

Claude’s paradigm shift 48 · Moderate. A fresh synthesis of scattered campaign evidence; moderate novelty. B48.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A useful within-discourse reference on campaign efficacy; no material reach. RWI2.