Police Scotland’s Marketing Messages: Evidence-Based Arbiters of Justice vs. Dictators of Scotland’s Social Narratives

Introduction

In the modern age of mass communication, marketing and advertising strategies are no longer confined to commercial industries but are also now being leveraged by public institutions to shape societal behaviours and perceptions. Police Scotland, alongside government and judicial systems, has adopted these tools to address pressing issues like domestic abuse and sexual crimes. Campaigns like the widely publicised ThatGuy initiative exemplify this shift, employing marketing psychology techniques to spotlight police and legal priorities, emphasise individual responsibility and behavioural change, and ultimately cultivate “trust” in institutional authority. But is that genuinely their purpose? And, if so, how effective are they in achieving these objectives?

This article examines the strategic use of marketing principles—such as the mere exposure effect, repetition, and cultural resonance—within public safety campaigns. The mere exposure effect capitalises on the psychological tendency to prefer familiarity, achieved through repeated messaging across various media. Repetition ensures these messages remain at the forefront of public consciousness, and the mere exposure effect can lead to the internalisation of carefully curated narratives, regardless of their alignment with objective truths. By crafting messages with cultural resonance, campaigns align with prevailing societal expectations, values, and amplify anticipated norms, making them increasingly relatable. However, this approach can shape public beliefs in ways that risk appearing deliberately designed to reinforce a sociopolitical agenda, potentially prioritising narrative control over the presentation of unbiased realities and facts.

While these strategies are effective in shaping public perception and influencing behaviour, their implementation often leads to unintended consequences and should raise ethical concerns. By reducing complex social dynamics to oversimplified narratives, such campaigns risk trivialising critical issues, including health, domestic abuse, and sexual crimes. In the context of domestic abuse and sexual crimes, this oversimplification can reinforce systemic biases within policing and judicial systems, resulting in outcomes that fail to address root causes or, worse, perpetuate harm to vulnerable individuals and inadvertently increase criminality. Moreover, an overreliance on marketing methods can divert resources and focus toward cultivating a polished institutional image that may not align with standard operating procedures or the delivery of justice, often at the expense of addressing the tangible needs of victims and pursuing meaningful, community-driven reforms.

This article seeks to unravel the interplay between marketing strategies and public safety narratives, highlighting both their potential and their limitations. By drawing on examples like Police Scotland’s campaigns and critiquing their underlying frameworks, this article argues that while marketing can be a powerful tool for positive societal change, it must be wielded responsibly to avoid reinforcing systemic failures or being weaponised against the public. Only by critically evaluating these marketing efforts and embedding them within a framework of meaningful reform—one that prioritises the safety and well-being of all individuals over marketing objectives—can institutions achieve genuine progress in addressing domestic abuse and sexual crimes.

The Role of Marketing Principles in Public Safety Campaigns

Marketing principles, often associated with manipulation and coercion to influence behaviour, have become a modern phenomenon in political campaigns and are now being adapted for use in public safety initiatives. These techniques, traditionally employed to shape consumer actions, are increasingly utilised in police messaging to the public, including campaigns addressing domestic abuse and sexual crime. While such efforts may appear to serve the public good, they invite scrutiny regarding the ethical implications of leveraging these persuasive methods to shape societal beliefs and behaviours. These campaigns rely on well-established strategies like the mere exposure effect, consistent messaging, and cultural resonance to craft narratives that engage the public, influence behaviour, and legitimise institutional authority.

The Mere Exposure Effect

The mere exposure effect is a psychological phenomenon where repeated exposure to a message or idea increases familiarity and, consequently, acceptance. Public safety campaigns exploit this principle by delivering repeated, recognisable messages across multiple platforms to normalise the narrative and embed it within public consciousness. Police Scotland’s ThatGuy and “Is That Me?” campaign exemplifies this strategy by targeting men aged 18-35 with a series of advertisements encouraging personal reflection and responsibility surrounding behaviours that, Police Scotland claim, contribute to domestic abuse and sexual offences. By presenting consistent visuals, slogans, and themes, the campaign ensures that its core message—male accountability for preventing abuse—becomes not only familiar but also socially acceptable.

Police Scotland’s campaigns purposefully target men within certain age ranges. The ThatGuy campaign is aimed at men aged 18 to 35, encouraging them to reflect on their behaviour towards women to prevent sexual offences. Similarly, the “Is That Me?” campaign targets young men aged 18 to 25, highlighting behaviours in new relationships that are abusive and may indicate future, escalating abuse.

Targeting VS Profiling

The focus on men aged 18-35 in these campaigns raises serious ethical and practical concerns. These initiatives are framed as public education, but their superficial and overly simplified messaging, which targets a specific and narrow demographic, suggests something far less benevolent: profiling and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.

Profiling Disguised as Prevention

While these campaigns claim to address behaviours contributing to domestic abuse and sexual crimes, targeting a specific demographic implicitly positions men aged 18-35 as inherently problematic. This approach:

• Reinforces Biases: Rather than addressing the systemic and multifaceted causes of abuse, these campaigns oversimplify expansive and deeply interconnected issues, distilling them into soundbite notions of individual actions and the behaviours of a single group, thereby perpetuating stereotypes about young men as inherently more dangerous than others.
• Legitimises Profiling: Such targeting mirrors discriminatory practices seen in other contexts, such as racial profiling. For example, imagine a campaign directed exclusively at black men, warning them to avoid criminal behaviour based on incarceration statistics. Such an approach would rightly be condemned as discriminatory and unjust. Similarly, campaigns targeting young men based on generalised assumptions and police statistics deserve the same level of scrutiny and concern, as they perpetuate harmful stereotypes and fail to address systemic complexities.

False Narratives and the Illusion of Justice

By focusing narrowly on men aged 18-35, these campaigns align with convenient police narratives that rely on selective statistics and skewed portrayals of victimhood and culpability. This approach reinforces public trust in biased, unproven institutional beliefs—and, in many cases, disproven assumptions—enabling law enforcement to frame reactions to abuse as criminal acts when it aligns with their entrenched gender biases. Rather than addressing the root causes of abuse and genuinely educating the public, these campaigns perpetuate simplistic and harmful narratives that risk empowering abusers while failing to protect future victims.

• Selective Framing: Campaigns like ThatGuy strategically cherry-pick data to support their messaging, conveniently overlooking the broader societal and systemic factors that underpin abuse and sexual violence, thereby presenting an incomplete and misleading narrative.
• Superficial Solutions: Rather than providing genuine education or systemic reform, these campaigns prioritise the appearance of being proactive, distracting from the failures of policing and judicial systems to serve the diverse needs of abuse survivors.

The Ethical Dilemma

The ethical implications of such targeted messaging are clear. If profiling based on race is deemed unacceptable, why should profiling based on age or gender be treated differently? By reinforcing stereotypes and focusing police attention on specific groups, campaigns like these risk alienating entire demographics while failing to address the complex realities of abuse and violence, which transcend simplistic profiles and affect individuals across all societal groups in a myriad of ways.

The Outcomes of Profiling

The reliance on profiling in campaigns like these leads to troubling outcomes that extend far beyond alienation. One significant consequence is the reinforcement of flawed investigative practices, where behaviours are interpreted or even manipulated to fit preconceived notions of criminality. For example, Police Scotland’s coercion training reportedly teaches officers to approach cases with the assumption that men pretending to be victims are attempting to manipulate the system, while women are automatically presumed to be victims. This biased assumption distorts perceptions of events, undermines the integrity of investigations, and jeopardises justice. Such training, which is fundamental to shaping the delivery of professional services, relies on the “consistent messaging” technique of their marketing campaigns for convenience, rather than equipping officers with the nuanced understanding and skills necessary to navigate the complexity of real-life cases. This approach inevitably defaults to self-serving policing rather than community-focused policing. After all, who poses a greater danger to society: the repeat offender who feels untouchable as they fall through the cracks of police profiling, or the victims left unprotected in their wake? Perhaps the answer is both—but in a more complex manner than the legal system acknowledges, as it seeks to avoid accountability for its role in exacerbating crime and disorder within society. Traumatised men, treated as perpetrators rather than victims, often have their initial injuries dismissed or criminalised, compounding their unresolved trauma and increasing the likelihood of emotional outbursts or future violence. By failing to recognise and address the root causes of trauma, the system not only exacerbates harm but also transforms untreated wounds, amplified by ineffective punitive measures, into the potential for future violence and crime. The selectively unaccountable repeat offenders—shielded by self-serving ideologies of “what a victim looks like” and “what a perpetrator looks like”—and their retraumatised counterparts pose significant threats to society. Abusers who hide in plain sight and operate above the law are enabled by these narrow narratives, while those retraumatised by punitive measures after experiencing abuse face an increased risk of acting out their trauma through violence. A society that fails to intervene with meaningful, compassionate, and timely solutions perpetuates harm at both ends of this spectrum, fostering ongoing threats to public safety rather than fixing them.

Research consistently demonstrates a strong link between trauma and subsequent criminal behaviour. For instance, a study by the University of Edinburgh (source) found that individuals who experienced adverse childhood experiences and adult trauma were more likely to engage in criminal activities. Among those who ceased criminal behaviour in adulthood, trauma experienced later in life—such as bereavement, relationship breakdowns, or repeated victimisation—was identified as a significant trigger for reoffending. Similarly, studies such as the “Effects of Adolescent Victimization on Offending” (source) which examines the relationship between adolescent victimisation and subsequent offending have found that victimisation during adolescence significantly increases the likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour in young adulthood. These findings underscore the necessity for Police Scotland to adopt trauma-informed approaches, rather than exploiting experiences of abuse against males to reinforce self-serving narratives and institutional agendas.

Research indicates that the human brain continues to develop into the mid to late twenties, with males often experiencing prolonged maturation compared to females. This extended development period, particularly in regions responsible for executive functions such as impulse control and decision-making, suggests that young adult males may be more susceptible to external influences and less equipped to navigate complex social challenges. (source)

A report by the UK Ministry of Justice highlights that young adults, especially males, are still undergoing neurological development up to the age of 25 and beyond. This ongoing maturation affects their behaviour and decision-making processes, indicating that misjudging their developmental needs by assuming full maturity can lead to inadequate support and increased vulnerability to negative outcomes. (source)

Understanding these developmental trajectories is crucial for law enforcement and support services. Recognising that young adult males may not yet possess fully matured cognitive and emotional regulation skills underscores the importance of trauma-informed approaches. Such awareness is critical for police and legal systems to ensure they are not the cause of long-term derailment through mishandling and punitive responses. By acknowledging the developmental vulnerabilities of this group, interventions can focus on support and rehabilitation rather than exacerbating harm through inappropriate punishment.

The profiling seen in Police Scotland’s domestic abuse campaigns fosters a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the narrative of male perpetrators and female victims is upheld irrespective of the complexities of individual cases. This dynamic protects female perpetrators from accountability and marginalises male victims and other underrepresented groups, further entrenching harmful stereotypes. It also erodes public trust in the fairness and impartiality of law enforcement, as the system appears to prioritise reinforcing its own narratives over understanding the science and dynamics of abuse to ensure equal justice and safer societies.

Moreover, these practices unintentionally embolden abusers who fall outside the narrowly defined demographic focus, granting them a degree of invisibility within the system. By fixating on specific profiles, law enforcement risks ignoring or dismissing cases that do not conform to these assumptions, leaving survivors of abuse, whatever their gender, unsupported.

The ultimate outcome is a policing approach that prioritises maintaining institutional narratives over addressing the nuanced realities of abuse. By promoting biased assumptions through campaigns and training, law enforcement perpetuates harm, failing to provide the protection and justice that truly vulnerable individuals require. Vulnerability should be understood as an individual’s inability to escape abuse, shaped by factors such as isolation, power dynamics, economic dependency, or systemic barriers, rather than their alignment with predetermined age or gender characteristics. A genuinely just system must prioritise the nuanced realities of abuse over superficial profiling, recognising that overt behavioural responses to trauma are not evidence of culpability or grounds for punitive silencing. Instead, such behaviours often reflect a desperate plea for effective support and meaningful intervention.

When resources are funnelled into increasing conviction rates and reinforcing institutional narratives, rather than enhancing support mechanisms and addressing systemic shortcomings, the priorities of the justice system are laid bare. In Scotland, this misallocation of funding and focus underscores a fundamental failure to prioritise the well-being of those most in need. By perpetuating cycles of harm and neglecting the root causes of abuse, the system ultimately serves its own interests at the expense of victims’ inevitable and urgent need for help.

The Naivety of Self-Accountability Campaigns

At their core, campaigns like ThatGuy and Is That Me? operate on the assumption that individuals engaging in abusive or criminal behaviours can and might be prompted to hold themselves accountable as an outcome of Police Scotland’s public messaging. This notion—that a systematic abuser, (regardless of age or gender), might see an advertisement and suddenly decide to change their behaviour—is not only naïve but also fundamentally flawed when considered within the context of reality.

Criminal behaviours, particularly those tied to patterns of abuse, are deeply rooted in power dynamics, psychological traits—including mental health disorders—and lifelong behavioural patterns. These patterns almost always stem from traumatic experiences, whether rooted in childhood adversity, poverty, or other environmental and genetic factors. Recognising the pervasive role of trauma and brain development is critical to understanding and addressing the real causes of criminal behaviour.

Expecting a healthy, sound-of-mind young male to view himself as a potential threat to society—or more specifically, as Police Scotland’s marketing suggests, a threat to all women—and, as a result, experience a transformative moment of self-reflection, is highly unrealistic. This expectation becomes outright absurd when directed not at young males in general, but specifically at young male abusers. The idea that an abuser could or would undergo a transformative moment of self-awareness as a result of an advertising campaign is not only unrealistic but fundamentally misguided. Similarly, the suggestion that other men should take on the role of policing their peers’ behaviour is both impractical and deeply problematic.

Why? The belief that an abuser could simply choose to stop harming others fails to account for the complex psychological and behavioural dynamics that drive abusive behaviour. Worryingly, this misunderstanding originates from those tasked with understanding and addressing these issues, raising serious questions: is this oversight a result of incompetence, or is it purposeful? And if it is purposeful, to what end?

• Abuse as a Power Dynamic: Abusers often justify their actions through distorted beliefs about control and entitlement. These deeply ingrained attitudes are unlikely to be dismantled by superficial messaging that fails to address their roots and will in many cases actually serve to empower abusers by teaching them how to avoid disclosure and accountability.
• Psychological Factors: Many abusers do not view their behaviour as abusive, either because they lack the self-awareness to recognise it or because they actively rationalise it. Without meaningful intervention or accountability mechanisms, expecting voluntary behavioural change is unrealistic.
• Systemic Failures: The systems in place to hold abusers accountable—legal, social, and rehabilitative—are often underfunded or ineffective. Public campaigns do little to address these structural deficiencies, leaving the problem unresolved.
• Unrealistic Expectations: If professionally trained police officers and fully funded institutions are unable to effectively deter abuse, it is unreasonable to expect members of the public to police their social networks. Such campaigns deflect an undue burden on young individuals while the police and legal system retain a record of failing to address the systemic flaws that allow abuse to persist.

FACT: Highlighting new ways for abusers to avoid detection is an unintended and dangerous consequence of poorly conceived domestic abuse campaigns. Abusers often justify their actions through distorted beliefs about control and entitlement, rooted in deeply ingrained behavioural and psychological dysfunctions. These patterns are not merely choices but compulsions driven by underlying pathologies that make abuse an inherent part of their relational dynamics and largely invisible to outsiders. For habitual abusers with an undocumented history of controlling and manipulative behaviour, the notion that superficial messaging—such as advertisements or short-term interventions—could dismantle these patterns is fundamentally flawed. In reality, such messaging may serve only to educate abusers on how to evade detection, refining their tactics rather than addressing their pathology.

Truly addressing domestic abuse requires interventions tailored to the compulsive and systemic nature of abuse, emphasising long-term therapeutic approaches, community accountability, and robust legal systems. Simplistic or idealistic messaging that assumes abusers are capable of self-policing, or that portrays victims as passive and weak, reliant on the brash and unflinching heavy arm of the law, fails to reflect the complex realities of abuse. Such approaches not only perpetuate harmful stereotypes but also risk exacerbating many domestic abuse situations, creating further harm and invisibility while claiming success on paper.

Domestic abuse marketing campaigns that target men often deflect attention from institutional failures, placing unreasonable responsibility on individuals who have not been charged with any crime but fit a gender-based profile. Rather than addressing the systemic inability to identify serious offenders and habitual abusers, or the persistent lack of support and protection for victims of abuse, these campaigns reinforce harmful stereotypes. This reflects a broader issue within law enforcement and the legal system: a tendency to shift blame onto individuals while avoiding accountability for its own structural shortcomings.

Supporting Evidence:

Clinical studies and interventions with habitual abusers reinforce this point:

1. Underlying Psychological Pathologies:
   • Research consistently identifies personality disorders, unresolved trauma, or compulsive behaviours as common among systemic abusers. These conditions are not addressed by surface-level awareness campaigns. Research indicates a significant association between certain personality disorders and intimate partner violence (IPV). A meta-analysis of 163 studies found that disordered personality plays a substantial role in IPV perpetration and victimisation, particularly highlighting borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). (source)
2. Evasion and Manipulation:
   • Abusers often display high levels of manipulative skill, allowing them to exploit interventions designed to challenge their behaviour. Studies on batterer intervention programs (BIPs) suggest that participants can exploit these programs to refine their justifications and concealment strategies. Abusers often exhibit behaviours that can undermine intervention efforts making the role of accountability in BIPs crucial to any effectiveness. (source)
3. Superficial Interventions:
   • Evidence from domestic abuse intervention programmes shows that sustained, intensive therapy and external accountability mechanisms are required for any meaningful change, and even then, success rates are limited. Evidence suggests that traditional batterer intervention programs (BIPs) have limited effectiveness in reducing recidivism among domestic violence offenders. A meta-analysis comparing outcomes for offenders in BIPs to untreated groups found minimal impact on reducing repeat offences. If structured and intensive programs with mandated participation struggle to achieve meaningful behavioural change, it stands to reason that simplistic, superficial measures—such as public awareness campaigns or advertisements—are even less likely to succeed in addressing the deep-seated issues driving abuse. This comparison underscores the need for comprehensive, evidence-based approaches to tackle domestic abuse and violence effectively. Campaigns relying on voluntary self-reflection lack the depth needed to address these complex behaviours while aiding abusers with new skills to avoid accountability. (source)

Reinforcing Stereotypes and Misrepresenting Abuse

Through this lens, the impact of these campaigns is not about reducing abuse or increasing awareness and accountability among those likely to offend, but rather about controlling—and perhaps even manufacturing—public perceptions. Rather than fostering genuine understanding of abuse and its complexities, these campaigns:

• Reinforce Harmful Stereotypes: By narrowly targeting young men and framing them as the problem, such campaigns perpetuate the stereotype that abuse is simply “men being nasty to women.” This oversimplification erases the experiences of male victims, non-binary individuals, and those who face abuse in less visible forms, such as financial control, isolation, emotional and sexual manipulation and cruelty.
• Misrepresent the Nature of Abuse: Abuse is neither an isolated event nor a thoughtless action that can be corrected through simple self-reflection. It is often systematic, calculated, and perpetuated by societal structures that normalise or overlook harm. Campaigns that reduce domestic abuse to traits of bad behaviour—suggesting it can be self-policed or improved through peer pressure—promote a misleading narrative. The idea that individuals with free will inflict patterns of abuse and therefore “ought to know better” is a dangerous myth that profoundly misinforms the public and ultimately serves both unethical law enforcement practices and abusers themselves.

If Police Scotland genuinely wishes to educate the public on the true nature of abuse and sexual crimes, it must move beyond oversimplifications, bias, and profiling. Effective public awareness requires a recognition of the complex, multifaceted nature of abuse and a commitment to addressing it through comprehensive efforts. This includes rehabilitation and restorative measures, rather than relying solely on punitive actions, which have little impact on reducing crime or promoting meaningful behavioural change. In fact, evidence suggests that punitive measures can ultimately increase incidents of abuse, further compounding the problem rather than resolving it.

The Danger of False Solutions

By framing abuse prevention as a matter of personal accountability, campaigns like ThatGuy create the illusion of progress while deflecting attention from the systemic reforms required to genuinely address domestic abuse and sexual violence. However, the real consequence of such campaigns is far more insidious: they pave the way for public acceptance of police mistreatment of young men, who will inevitably become the targets of profiling and punitive action when it serves the political narrative to do so.

Unseen Victims of a Self-Serving System

These campaigns fail to account for the nuanced realities faced by many young men who may be struggling to navigate abusive situations themselves. Under the primitive and self-serving narrative of the law, their trauma becomes their crime:

• Criminalising Survivors: Young men who exhibit defensive or maladaptive behaviours in response to abuse perpetrated against them may be mischaracterised as offenders. Rather than being offered support or visibility, they are rendered invisible by a system that prioritises simplistic binaries of victim and perpetrator.
• No Escape: For these unseen victims, the lack of understanding and systemic support leaves no path to safety or justice. They are trapped in cycles of harm, their experiences dismissed and their struggles ignored by the very institutions tasked with protecting them.

The Power Imbalance of Institutions

Ironically, the institutions demanding accountability from males often mirror the same dynamics of abuse that they claim to be addressing:

• Deflecting Accountability: Just as abusers effortlessly deflect responsibility for their actions, law enforcement institutions avoid acknowledging the harm they cause through their own policies and practices. A narrative of meaningful police accountability, where in reality none exists, serves as a shield for police corruption, one that enables the police to deflect all scrutiny, hiding their insidious actions in plain sight, while perpetuating systemic failures with near total anonymity and presenting these outcomes as successful and legitimate on paper.
• Perpetuating Harm: By targeting young men indiscriminately, these campaigns reinforce harmful stereotypes and exacerbate the very issues they purport to solve. The lack of accountability for institutional harm mirrors the power imbalances that underpin abusive behaviours, compounding the trauma experienced by those caught in the system during or after domestic abuse.

The Cost of Police Scotland’s Marketing Message

The consequences of these campaigns extend beyond the individuals they directly target. By fostering a public narrative that conflates trauma with criminality, they undermine broader societal efforts to understand and address the complexities of abuse. The result is a system that not only fails to protect the most vulnerable members of the public but is actively contributing to their victimisation and revictimisation. Campaigns like ThatGuy may present themselves as progressive, but in reality, they suffer from intergenerational prejudice, clinging to outdated perspectives that have no place in a modern and inclusive society. Ultimately, these campaigns appear to serve no real purpose besides the legal system’s thirst for self-serving data, disregarding the fact that sex (gender) is a protected characteristic in Scotland and must, by law, be safeguarded against discrimination—rendering such campaigns potentially discriminatory and legally questionable. Instead of promoting equitable treatment, campaigns of this nature foster gender divisions within society, reinforcing institutional control through polarised narratives of their own making. While the skill and precision of a surgeon’s scalpel could prevent further societal harm, Police Scotland, backed by Scottish politicians and the legal system, invests in swinging a mallet at society’s open wounds, claiming this will eventually reduce the swelling—it won’t.

Consistent Messaging

Simple consistent messaging is a cornerstone of advertising, ensuring that every interaction within a campaign reinforces its central theme. Public safety initiatives are achieving this through the repetition of overly simplified concepts that fail to present factual truths. For instance, the ThatGuy campaign consistently frames its messaging around men intervening in harmful behaviours, creating a cohesive narrative that positions accountability of the individual as a societal norm while ignoring the underlying compulsions and impulse control disorders that tend to accompany abuse. This singular focus on a narrow and oversimplified portrayal of abuse—male perpetrators with free will and female victims—reveals the inherent flaws in such consistent messaging strategies.

While the campaign claims to address abuse as a societal issue, it largely excludes the nuanced realities of abuse, such as mental health disorders, trauma, male victimhood, non-binary experiences, or female perpetrators. Vast sums of money are invested in promoting a single style of abuse with a single type of perpetrator (the “evil male”) and a single type of victim (the “innocent, vulnerable female”). Institutions, when pushed, may acknowledge the broader spectrum of abuse with token rhetoric such as “anyone can be a victim,” but these statements are fleeting and lack meaningful integration into the campaign. This calculated omission ensures that the core messaging remains consistent, repeating a simplistic and memorable notion—even when it causes more harm than good.

The flaw of consistent marketing in campaigns like ThatGuy lies in its reduction of people and domestic abuse to caricatures of lived experiences. It fails to address the complexity of abuse, instead reflecting how Police Scotland and the legal system wish the public to view it. Abuse becomes not what is experienced, but what is convenient to portray: a binary narrative that aligns with institutional priorities and reinforces public trust in these proactively misrepresented false-truth narratives.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of such marketing efforts is their potential to enable harmful systemic behaviours. By presenting oversimplified and misleading depictions of abuse, they help cultivate public tolerance for institutional failures. Male victims, in particular, are relegated to an afterthought, their experiences rendered invisible within the campaign’s framework. This enables the police and legal systems to mishandle cases involving male victims with little public backlash, as the public is conditioned by such campaigns to believe that the police act in the interests of victims. However, this belief is not grounded in lived experience—where accounts of mishandling and negligence are prevalent—but rather in the carefully curated and often inaccurate narratives presented by Police Scotland, and reinforced by the supportive attitudes of legislators and the judiciary under the guise of “educational” information campaigns.

Cultural Resonance

Historically, public safety campaigns have aimed to shift societal behaviours and perceptions, such as encouraging seatbelt use, promoting road safety, and highlighting the dangers of smoking. These initiatives sought to educate the public and foster healthier communities. In contrast, Police Scotland’s recent campaigns appear to deviate from this educational approach, instead leveraging the marketing tactic of cultural resonance. This strategy exploits pre-existing societal fears and stereotypes for institutional objectives, rather than promoting genuine social improvement.

Cultural resonance can enhance the effectiveness of public safety campaigns by aligning messages with societal norms and values. The ThatGuy campaign, for instance, taps into contemporary discussions about toxic masculinity and male privilege, ostensibly making its message more pertinent to its target audience. By framing its content to resonate with prevalent fears and simplistic explanations of perceived threats, the campaign seeks to foster relatability and engagement. However, this approach can be problematic when it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and oversimplifies complex issues.

Individuals without direct experience of abuse may form opinions based solely on the repetitive and consistent messaging of such campaigns. Historically, the repetition of simple ideas, especially when infused with elements of fear, has been a powerful tool in shaping public perception. This method can lead to the acceptance of narratives that may not accurately reflect reality, as fear can drive individuals to embrace simplistic solutions.

Alarmingly, campaigns that rely on discriminatory messaging can inadvertently incite backlash against innocent individuals, akin to modern-day witch hunts. This phenomenon has been observed throughout history, where propaganda has fueled societal divisions and justified the mistreatment of marginalised groups. For example, during the Salem witch trials, propaganda played a significant role in inciting hysteria and persecution. Similarly, racially charged advertisements in the 19th and 20th centuries perpetuated stereotypes and justified discriminatory practices. 

By drawing parallels to these historical instances, it becomes evident that the use of fear-based, culturally resonant messaging in public safety campaigns can have detrimental effects. Rather than fostering understanding and positive change, such strategies may reinforce existing prejudices and contribute to societal harm.

While cultural resonance can amplify the emotional impact of public safety campaigns, it is imperative to employ this strategy ethically. Exploiting societal fears and stereotypes may achieve short-term engagement but can lead to long-term societal damage. Public safety initiatives should strive to educate and unite communities, promoting nuanced understandings of complex issues rather than resorting to fear-based tactics that divide and misinform based on discrimination.

---

Building Familiarity to Shape Behaviour

Familiarity, established through strategic repetition, plays a significant role in shaping public perceptions and behaviours. Repeated exposure to an idea fosters a sense of trust in the message, a principle widely utilised in branding and advertising strategies. In public welfare campaigns, this approach is employed to build trust in both the message and the institution delivering it, positioning law enforcement as proactive and deeply invested in community welfare.

However, this repetition can also lead to the uncritical acceptance of certain narratives, particularly when reinforced by selective news stories and statements from celebrities and authority figures. For instance, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC has stated that “the vast majority [of victims] are female” and described domestic abuse as a crime that “blights Scottish society.” While these statements aim to bring victims in need out of obscurity and provide them with support, they implicitly suggest that “the vast majority” of victims fit a specific type—a claim that is both inaccurate and reductive.

Ironically, this framing, aligned with Police Scotland’s preferred narrative, obscures the experiences of countless victims, further isolating those who do not conform to this narrow portrayal. Male victims, victims in same-sex relationships, and those experiencing abuse from female perpetrators are left behind, their realities erased by this discriminatory and gendered perspective, despite the claims of understanding and inclusivity.

Such messaging, coupled with statistics indicating that “more than 80% of the reported crimes involved a male perpetrator,” risks reinforcing a double standard. While the Lord Advocate’s public statements and Police Scotland’s campaigns claim to pull victims out of the shadows and raise awareness, they simultaneously cast a shadow over vast swathes of victims whose experiences do not align with a narrow institutional narrative. By framing abuse primarily as male-on-female violence, they marginalise victims who fall outside their capacity to identify and protect, leaving them unsupported, invisible, and further traumatised.

For example, Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC has linked the festive season to increased risks of domestic abuse for women, stating: “For far too many women in Scotland, [Christmas] is a frightening prospect.” She referenced the 5,113 domestic abuse reports received during the previous Christmas period as evidence, adding that the extended time spent at home during the holidays often worsens the suffering of victims. Bain’s observation heavily centres women as victims while neglecting to address the broader realities of abuse, including the many male victims who also endure abuse during this time. This imbalance in messaging not only skews public understanding but legitimises discriminatory approaches to justice and support systems. The result is a deeply flawed perception of domestic abuse, shaped more by repetition and selective framing than by the complex truths of lived experiences.

The danger lies in the potential for these pervasive ideas to become accepted truths—not only shaping public perception but, perhaps more critically, influencing legal frameworks, support systems, and law enforcement practices. These narratives gain traction not because they reflect the full spectrum of reality, but because their familiarity breeds acceptance. This selective framing risks entrenching biases, restricting public awareness, and perpetuating systemic injustices that fail to meet the needs of victims.

The Lord Advocate of Scotland holds a dual role as the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the head of the public prosecution system. This position demands a steadfast commitment to impartiality and non-discrimination. As outlined in the Prosecution Code, the Lord Advocate is responsible for ensuring that prosecutions are conducted with impartiality, thoroughness, integrity, and sensitivity. (source)

When viewed against Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC’s public statements framing domestic abuse as an overwhelmingly female-victim issue, this commitment to impartiality appears compromised. Such remarks, while aiming to support a specific group, marginalise others by perpetuating a gendered ideology that obscures the broader realities of domestic abuse. By choosing to reinforce these selective narratives, the system risks failing in its legal duty to impartiality and perpetuates the very biases it is charged with eliminating.

While familiarity through repetition can be a powerful tool for combating discrimination, using these techniques to embed discriminatory practices is deeply troubling. It risks entrenching harmful double standards. To genuinely address domestic abuse, public safety campaigns and announcements must present a balanced perspective that validates and includes the diverse experiences of all individuals affected by abuse and not those who fit a profile. (source)

Positioning Law Enforcement as Proactive Protectors – Repetition and Public Trust

Repeated exposure to campaign messaging strengthens the perception that law enforcement is actively addressing pressing societal issues. For instance, the ThatGuy campaign’s presence on social media reinforces the idea that Police Scotland is committed to tackling the root causes of sexual violence. This repetition builds public trust in the narrative, encouraging individuals to align with the campaign’s ideology and, by extension, the institution itself. By framing behaviours—such as challenging harmful comments or holding peers accountable—as moral imperatives, these campaigns position themselves as ethical and socially aware organisations. However, this approach fails to acknowledge that such behaviours are neither evidence of, nor precursors to, sexual crimes and are in no way exclusive to males, thereby perpetuating a gendered and reductive narrative.

The ThatGuy campaign, launched by Police Scotland, aims to reduce sexual crimes by encouraging men to reflect on their attitudes and behaviours towards women. (source) The campaign emphasises the importance of men challenging inappropriate comments and holding peers accountable, framing these actions as moral responsibilities. (source)

Critics argue that the campaign’s focus on promoting a need for respectful behaviour towards females by males blurs the line between criminals and members of the public. There is no evidence to support a correlation between poor etiquette, or even offensive behaviour and criminal intent, including abuse. However, this campaign may inadvertently imply that minor social infractions are precursors to serious sexual offences, potentially diverting attention from actual criminality and unjustly profiling young males. Such assumptions are as unfounded as suggesting that individuals with a heightened sex drive or an overactive libido are more likely to offend, a notion that oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexities of criminal behaviour and motivations.

Historically, crime data in many jurisdictions, including Scotland, has shown that males aged 18 to 35 are statistically more likely to be arrested, charged, or convicted for various offences compared to other demographics. Similarly, ethnic minorities are often disproportionately represented in crime statistics, reflecting systemic patterns rather than inherent criminality. The data reflects enforcement priorities, it does not mean that more individuals within these groups are offenders, nor do they establish causal links between demographics and criminal behaviour. Instead, these patterns are influenced by systemic reporting practices and enforcement priorities, which can unintentionally reinforce overgeneralisation and profiling, rather than providing an accurate or unbiased reflection of criminality. Perhaps Police Scotland’s targeting of young males in their domestic abuse campaign highlights this ingrained systemic bias.

While fostering respectful interactions is valuable, it is crucial to distinguish between promoting social etiquette and addressing behaviours that constitute criminal offences. Conflating the two risks creating misunderstandings about the true nature of sexual crimes and the factors that contribute to them.

A more troubling issue arises when police use minor infractions, such as inappropriate remarks or drunken behaviour, as evidence of tackling criminality. These actions, while often socially unacceptable, are worlds apart from the gravity and complexity of actual sexual crimes like rape. The outcome of this misdirected police narrative, focus, and resource allocation is dangerous, as it trivialises genuine criminal acts while redirecting attention to behaviours that, though inappropriate, do not constitute a criminal threat to safety. This not only undermines the seriousness and complexity of sexual violence but also distorts the public’s understanding of sexual violence and criminality, fostering a false sense of progress and justice.

The decision to align notions of rape with the ThatGuy campaign is particularly troubling because it conflates behaviours that fall far outside the spectrum of criminal conduct with one of the most serious and traumatising offences. By implying that inappropriateness or a failure to challenge others’ harmful behaviours could lead to serious criminal outcomes, the campaign risks doing severe damage to the social fabric of gender-based relationships. These relationships, which exist across a varied spectrum, rely on intuitions developed over time, they must be grounded in facts and insights and learned through personal experiences. These evolved intuitions form the foundation of survival capacities and would be profoundly undermined by narratives that teach suspicion and fear through oversimplification and selective information. Such diluted narratives weaken the justice system’s ability to focus on actual offenders and erode the public’s capacity to assess danger effectively, fostering a culture of mistrust—particularly toward men—without offering meaningful solutions to address the root causes of sexual crimes and domestic abuse.

Moreover, this approach may lead to a dangerous precedent where police forces focus on enforcing low-hanging legal fruit for minor social infractions rather than dedicating meaningful resources to the investigation, prosecution amd resolution of serious offences. By equating minor social misconduct with criminality, the legal system empowers itself to claim success in reducing crime while failing to deliver any meaningful results. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy not only among the male population as discussed here, but also within institutions where cases of abuse are framed in ways that support the campaign’s message, often focusing on punitive measures against males rather than systemic reform to limit the harms caused by abuse. The selective framing legitimises institutional actions (or inactions), even when they fail to address deeper issues, the narrative merely encourages unquestioning trust or even corruption within the police to satisfy campaign goals.

When individuals are inundated with the same messages across multiple platforms, they may begin to question the sincerity of these initiatives. This phenomenon, akin to “ad fatigue” in commercial advertising, manifests as a growing indifference or scepticism towards the campaign’s core message.

For instance:

• Survivors of domestic abuse may feel alienated when campaign narratives fail to reflect the nuanced realities of their experiences, such as the complex reasons they remain in abusive relationships or the lack of accessible support services, or the treatment they directly experienced when interacting with law enforcement.
• Overexposure to targeted messaging can lead to a perception that institutions are more focused on public relations than on institutional accountability, diminishing public trust in their ability to address real-world issues.

Public cynicism is further fuelled when campaigns claim progress that does not align with the lived experiences of the communities they serve. For example:

• While judicial systems may meet numerical targets for prosecutions or convictions related to domestic abuse, frontline law enforcement may fail to adequately protect victims or address safety concerns in real time.
• Mishandled cases, such as slow responses, lack of empathy from officers, or procedural errors, expose the disparity between the polished narratives of public campaigns and the messy realities on the ground.
• Revictimisation by police and legal systems under the banner of successful policing further entrench communities with traumas that escalate over time with negative consequences for communities but positive results for police, on paper.

This dissonance can deepen public distrust and anger, particularly among those directly impacted by domestic abuse. Survivors who feel neglected or retraumatised by the system are likely to view the campaigns as offensive, further alienating them from institutions meant to provide protection and justice.

The tendency to misinterpret victims’ behaviours, driven in part by oversimplified narratives, bias, poor quality training, and a thirst by institutions to be seen as capable, exacerbates trauma and blocks survivors from receiving help. The psychological toll of interacting with systems that prioritise meeting institutional targets over providing empathetic, victim-centred care does immense harm. The cumulative effect of these dynamics is a growing erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and judicial systems. Communities become sceptical of campaigns that appear more focused on optics than on tangible improvements to safety and justice. This distrust is particularly pronounced in marginalised communities, where systemic biases are more likely to result in unequal treatment and outcomes.

When survivors of domestic abuse engage with systems that fail to address their unique needs or retraumatise them through mishandled cases, the harm extends beyond the immediate crisis. For example, survivors may feel unsupported when their safety concerns are dismissed or inadequately addressed, leaving them vulnerable to further abuse and the psychological toll of interacting with police and legal systems who prioritise meeting institutional targets over providing empathetic, victim-centred care can result in undue harms and erode survivors’ confidence in seeking future help.

The cumulative effect of these dynamics is a growing erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and judicial systems.

To transform these campaigns into tools for genuine progress, they must be accompanied by substantive reforms. The following proposals aim to align public messaging with meaningful institutional action:

1. Educational Underpinnings:
   • Awareness campaigns must be based on a comprehensive understanding of domestic abuse, incorporating diverse perspectives and addressing systemic factors.
   • For example, rather than relying on inflammatory rhetoric, campaigns could focus on the dynamics of coercive control, the impact of socio-economic inequalities, and the diverse experiences of victims and perpetrators.
2. Policy Accountability:
   • Campaigns must be tied to measurable outcomes, such as reductions in repeat offending or improvements in victim safety.
   • Institutions should publicly report on how these campaigns are translated into actionable reforms, such as increased funding for shelters or enhanced training for officers—rather than presenting increases in arrest and conviction data as substantive or meaningful.
3. Collaborative Development:
   • Campaigns should be co-designed with input from survivors of all backgrounds, advocacy groups, and academic experts to ensure they reflect the complexities of abuse rather than Police Scotland’s preferred narratives.
   • Including voices from underrepresented groups—such as male victims, LGBTQ+ individuals, and minority communities—can help combat the biases that arise from oversimplified messaging.
4. Balanced Narratives:
   • Campaigns must avoid profiling or stereotyping specific demographics. Messaging should reflect the shared societal responsibility to address abuse, rather than isolating one gender as the problem.
   • For instance, educational materials could explore how societal norms, power dynamics, and cultural factors contribute to abuse and explore the varied presentations of different types of abusive behaviour, encouraging all individuals to reflect on their roles in fostering safe relationships.

Campaigns must be paired with investments in services that directly support victims, including:

• Trauma-informed counselling and legal assistance.
• Accessible emergency housing and financial support.
• Tailored services for underrepresented or marginalised groups.

• Training officers to handle abuse cases with empathy and cultural competence.
• Eliminating biases that lead to the criminalisation of victims or the mishandling of cases.
• Prioritising victim safety and well-being over procedural targets or public image.

Only by bridging the gap between messaging and reality can institutions reclaim public trust and create campaigns that educate rather than alienate, inspire rather than divide, and deliver genuine progress in the fight against domestic abuse and sexual violence.