An explanation of each post

Post #1 (pretty girl)

This post shows a smiling, pretty girl not using a phone while driving. While this picutre in and of itself isn't terribly specific, if you put it in the context of "she's happy  because she's not using her phone while in the car" The assocative bridge is made.

Post #2 (Wayne's World)

This post takes advantage of an iconic scene from a well loved movie, Wayne's World. The basic message, assuming you don't look too deeply into it, is that it's more fun to drive when you're not on your phone, so you have more time to goof off and headbang to Freddie Mercury. (And hopefully the implications of "well that's dangerous too!" are totally ignored)

Post #3

This post utilizes intensity to get its message across. In the case of this post specifically, an accident was literally caused by a cell phone. There's some sort of meta hoodoo going on in this post, since it's implied that cell phones cause accidents, and even more, rogue gigantic cell phones are no less dangerous.

Post #4

This one's message was based on repitition. I figured I'd take a bit of an obscure, terrifying mythical creature, and give a convincing, repetitive message against using the phone while driving. It's tongue in cheek sure, but I'm sure it's at least entertaining enough to make someone stop and think.

Post #5

This post deals with subliminal messaging, obviously we couldn't make a subliminal message, no tools for it here. However, we managed to break down simple messages that could trigger subconscious responses from us. Things like "wait" "slow down" etc. Nothing too specific

Post #6

This is the first of the credible communicator posts. Basically the angle was "Morgan Freeman is cool as all hell, and against using your phone while driving, so you should probably listen to him" It's got the one-two punch of both classical conditioning (associating cool with non-cell use) and having Morgan Freeman, the most credible communicator I could think of.

Post #7

The is the second credible communicator. For this one we used Dr. Phil. He is most likely a bit more credible to the average person, since he's got a Dr. before his name, so people would be inclined to listen to him.

Post #8

This is the fear-inductor. We used the formula given to get our message across against driving and using the phone, not getting too fact heavy, just a simple, visceral message I guess.

Post #9

This is a simple message with a couple distracting elements in it, namely a irrelevant picture of both a hamster eating a carrot, and a random weather ticker (that doesn't work). Also fiddled with the font to make it more "enticing" in the corporate sense.

Post #10

This was a complex, two sided message. The intent of it is to appeal to central root processing, to do this, we presented both sides of the argument, and in the end lent our opinion that it would be better to follow our message of not using your phone while driving.