This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney] On: 29 August 2014, At: 02:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults a
a
Beatriz González-Iglesias , José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela & Jorge Sobral
b
a
University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain b
University of Santiago de Compostela, Social Psychology, Campus sur s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain Accepted author version posted online: 18 Aug 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Beatriz González-Iglesias, José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela & Jorge Sobral (2014): Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults, Traffic Injury Prevention, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2014.946500 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.946500
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults Beatriz González-Iglesias1, Dr José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela1, Jorge Sobral2
1
University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida
s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
2
University of Santiago de Compostela, Social Psychology, Campus sur s/n, Santiago de
Compostela, 15782 Spain
Address correspondence to Beatriz González-Iglesias, University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain; Email: [email protected]
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract Objective: The main purposes of this study were to examine the usefulness of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour (viz., attitudes, social norms and self-efficacy) and to explore the relationship between optimism bias and drink driving in young adults. In addition, we explored gender differences in drink driving with provision for the effect of variables such as
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
driving frequency and alcohol consumption. Methods: Data were collected via a questionnaire administered to 274 drivers (59.9% females) aged 18–30 years (24.36 ± 2.96). Results: The results obtained with provision for driving frequency revealed substantial differences in driving behaviours between genders. Thus, males were more prone to drink driving, perceived less disapproval by their significant others (parents and peers) and felt less able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations. Also, they self-reported more frequent alcohol consumption and driving under the influence. The results also confirm the significance of peers’ subjective norms and attitudes to drink driving in males. Overconfidence in their own driving skills for driving drunk, and perceived behavioural control, were found to be significant predictors for drink driving in females. Optimism bias also played a slightly significant role in predicting drink driving, but only in females. Conclusions: The important practical implications of these results with a view to designing effective interventions to prevent the risks associated with drink driving in the young population are discussed. Interventions should focus on young people’s perception of group norms and on promoting cautionary driving choices and alternatives to drink driving. Key words: social norms; self-efficacy; optimism bias; drink driving.
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT INTRODUCTION Alcohol abuse is one of the factors most closely associated to traffic accidents, and to risky and dangerous driving behaviours (Dobson et al. 1999; Lonczak et al. 2007; McCarthy and Pedersen 2009; Snow et al. 2001). An estimated one-fourth of all accidents in Europe each year is due to drink driving. Also, the prevalence of driving above the legal alcohol limit (0.5 g/l) amounts to
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1% of the driving population and that 1% causes 25% of all road accidents recorded in Europe each year (ERSO 2006). Although driving legislation in Spain has lately been strengthened with the introduction of the penalty-point driving license and various road safety related reforms of the Penal Code, most crashes where a person is killed in Spain involve a driver who was exceeding the legal alcohol limit (Dirección General de Tráfico 2012). Alcohol is also a major factor for accidents in young drivers, especially at night and weekends (Calafat et al. 2008). In fact, drink driving is estimated to be involved in at least 50% of all road accidents among the youth (Anderson and Baumberg 2006). Young people’s inexperience with alcohol and driving has been deemed one of the main reasons why alcohol consumption affects their driving skill more markedly than in adults (Kulick and Rosenberg 2000). In fact, youths are typically less alcohol-tolerant than adults and alcohol has especially marked neuropsychological effects on a developing brain (Cadaveira 2009). Also, driving is an especially demanding task for novice drivers, who are 6 times more prone to have an accident with a blood alcohol level of 0.50 g/l than without drinking. In addition, self-control mechanisms are less developed in youths, who tend to be more emotional and impulsive —and hence to exhibit riskier behaviours— than older drivers (Wickens et al. 2012).
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Researchers have proposed various psychological factors as determinants of driving behaviour. Such factors are cognitive–emotional and social variables which facilitate the identification of the specific behaviours exhibited under also specific circumstances. Many such variables are used in the different models developed so far to explain various risky and healthy behaviours. Such is the case with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
that of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991). The theory of reasoned action predicts that the decision to adopt a given behaviour is governed by positive and/or favourable attitudes towards that behaviour, the presence of a supportive social environment and individual motivation to comply with references (viz., subjective social norms). In a subsequent development of the theory of reasoned action, Ajzen (1991) addressed those behaviours which are not under an individual’s absolute control. Thus, he introduced the perceived behavioural control construct, which is conceptually very close to the self-efficacy concept of Bandura (1987), as a determinant of the intention to adopt a given behaviour in addition to attitudes and subjective norms. According to the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), individuals will drive drunk if they (a) believe that they have the skill to drive in that condition and that no hindrance to adopting that behaviour (e.g., the presence of drink driving controls nearby) seemingly exists; (b) judge the specific behaviour favourably (e.g., it allows them to get home earlier); and (c) perceive that their references (peers, partner, family) do not disapprove of drink driving, so they are motivated to follow their advice. The theory of planned behaviour has been used to explain various driving behaviours such as use of the mobile phone (Nemme and White 2010; Zhou et al. 2009), traffic violations
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (Parker et al. 1992) and speeding (Elliott et al. 2003; Newnam et al. 2004). If, as advocated by healthy behaviour models, a given behaviour is the result of a conscious decision made by individuals after assessing previous history and potential consequences, why do they decide to adopt risky behaviours such as drink driving in spite of the objective, perceivable risks they involve? This question has raised the need to consider an alternative decision-making process.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Such a process focuses on impulsive decisions led by emotional reactions to specific situations or based on heuristics such as young people’s feeling of invulnerability or their perception of a selfcontrol ability that leads them to underestimate the potential risk of their behaviours (Evans 2008; Gibbons et al. 2009). The feeling of invulnerability, also known as optimistic bias or unrealistic optimism (Weinstein 1980, 1984), can be defined as the tendency of some people to believe that their likelihood of having adverse consequences is lower and that of succeeding higher than in the others. Although an optimistic bias can have positive connotations and help individuals adjust to their environment —in terms of self-esteem or motivation, for example— it can also lead to feelings of invulnerability (Concha et al. 2012). According to Weinstein, the feeling of invulnerability is a major predictor of risky behaviours, so it should have a negative effect on decisions to adopt such behaviours (Dillard et al. 2009). The optimistic bias has been examined in relation to the response to a wide variety of situations including road accidents, earthquakes, depression and unwanted pregnancy (Weinstein 1982, 1996). Drivers are not immune to optimistic bias. Since most, but particularly male youths, overestimate their driving skills (Dejoy 1989; Harré et al. 2005) and believe they are better than the average driver, they tend to feel invulnerable to unpleasant events (Matthews and Moran
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1986). That feeling of invulnerability can influence their perceptual judgements and, ultimately, the behaviours they adopt by effect of their underestimating the associated risk (Greening and Chandler 1997). A number of studies have demonstrated the presence of an optimistic bias in perceiving the risk of accidents (Gras 1994). Based on their results, previous experience with accidents is a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
predictor of the feeling of vulnerability to them; in fact, those individuals who have or know someone who has had an accident feel more vulnerable than those without this experience. However, having a road accident oneself or in the family does not predict the adoption of a preventive behaviour such as using the safety belt. In other words, someone who has had an accident or knows someone close who has tends to be more vulnerable to another accident, but this does not necessarily lead to wiser driving (Gras et al. 2007). Similarly, the high perceptions of some drivers about their own driving skills are associated to a feeling of less vulnerability to an accident. In fact, those drivers who feel scarcely vulnerable to having an accident are less motivated to take driving education courses and more prone to risky behaviours such as reckless driving or jumping red lights (White et al. 2011). Based on the foregoing, in this work we studied the potential determinants of drink driving in young males and females. The primary aim of this work was to assess the relationship of optimism bias with the variables of the theory of planned behaviour and drink driving in a sample of young adults. A secondary aim was to check whether a biased perception of the risks associated with DUI behaviours are significant predictors of drink driving. The variables of the theory of planned behaviour were expected to predict drink driving and a biased perception of the ensuing risks was expected to account for a substantial portion of such behaviours. Finally,
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT since gender has been deemed a relevant factor for studying driving behaviours, we assessed to what extent potential determinants of drinking driving vary as a function of gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency and consumption of alcohol.
METHODS
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Participants The study was conducted on 274 drivers aged 18–30 (24.36 ± 2.96 yr) of whom 59.9% were females. All information was obtained in an individual manner by incidental sampling among volunteering students of the University of Santiago de Compostela (NW Spain) and individuals from the authors’ personal and work environments over the period April to June 2011. Participants included Psychology and Criminology undergraduates (N = 115, 69.56% females) and several non-university participants (N = 159, 52.20% females) of similar characteristics (social status, ethnicity, income level) from various locations in Galicia (NW Spain). The participants had obtained their driving license in the previous 12 years (average = 5.51 ± 2.98 yr) and reported driving around 13 000 kilometres each year (range, 500–50 000 km/yr).
Materials A questionnaire booklet was compiled to assess each of the following variables in sequence: Positive attitudes to drink driving: A Spanish translation of the Attitudes on Drinking and Driving Scale (ADDS) (Jewell et al.; Jewell et al. 2008) was developed for this study. The ADDS comprises 12 items (e.g., “I believe it is okay to drink and drive if it is daytime”) scored on a Likert scale from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). A high score on an
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ADDS item indicates a positive attitude to the behaviour concerned. The ADDS has a reliability index of .82. Subjective social norms: The influence of normative beliefs of the reference groups and the participants’ motivation to comply with them was assessed by using an 8-item scale in two parts. One part consisted of 4 items assessing disapproval of drink driving by peers (α = .87) and the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
other of 4 related to parents’ perceived norms (α = .67). All items (e.g., “Your friends/your parents would disapprove of you driving after having more than four drinks”) were scored from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). High scores on these scales indicate strong disapproval of DUI behaviours from parent and friends. Perceived behavioural control: This variable was assessed via 9 items distributed between two subscales, namely: Self-efficacy to avoid a DUI behaviour and Perceived driving self-efficacy. The former subscale consisted of 7 items and assessed the degree of control of drinking and “avoiding drinking and driving” behaviours as perceived by the drivers themselves (α = .73). The items included the drivers’ own judgements on their ability to perform at a given level (“I can…”) and the difficulty of performing a given behaviour (“It would be easy / difficult for me to…”). The latter subscale was an index of 2 items (“I drive better than most of the people I know” and “I think I am a good driver”) which assessed the tendency of drivers of all ages to overestimate their driving skills and believe that they are better than the average driver. Responses to this subscale were also scored on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). Optimism bias: Subjective perceptions of the drivers’ ability to have some negative consequence from drink driving was assessed by using 8 items in the form of conditional
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT judgements (e.g., “Compared to other people of your age and sex, how likely are you to have a road accident if you drive after having a few alcoholic drinks?”). The target for comparison was an “average person” of the same age and sex. The 8 items were distributed between two subscales measuring vulnerability to some adverse consequence (e.g., having an accident, being injured or die, being fined or arrested by the police, losing licence points) from drink driving (5
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
items) or riding with a drunk driver (3 items). The Cronbach’s alpha value for these subscales was .95 and .82, respectively. The items were scored on a 7-choice scale ranging from –3 (“well below the average”) through 0 (“like the average”) to +3 (“well above the average”). Negative scores indicated that the drivers underestimated their own risk in performing a DUI behaviour, positive scores suggested that they overestimated their own risk, and a zero score that they made an unbiased judgement of their vulnerability while driving (e.g. Dejoy 1989; Helwerg-Larsen and Shepperd 2001). Alcohol use: The Spanish version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) developed by Rubio et al. (1998) was used to assess alcohol use. The AUDIT consists of ten items regarding recent use, dependence symptoms and alcohol-related problems. Each item was scored from 0 to 4. By exception, items 9 and 10 were scored 0, 2 or 4. The individual item scores were combined to obtain a total AUDIT score (α = .78). Driving under the influence / DUI behaviours: Drink driving —in what follows “DUI behaviours”— was assessed on an ad hoc 4-item scale where each item was scored from 0 (“never”) to 4 (“many times”) depending on the frequency each driver had performed the following DUI behaviours during the previous year: “Driving after having some drink”, “Driving
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT after having more than four drinks”; “Riding with someone who had drunk to excess”; “Driving after taking drugs”). The reliability index of this scale was .76. Demographic variables: In addition, we asked the participants to provide socio-demographic information regarding their driving history: experience (year they obtained their driving licence)
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
and driving frequency (measured in kilometers per year).
Procedure All participants received a copy of the different questionnaires to be completed and were asked to select the specific choice best fitting their case for each item. Strict confidentiality throughout the assessment process was assured. Data were processed with the statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics v. 201
RESULTS Table 1 shows the scores of the variables examined by gender as adjusted for driving frequency on account of the presence of significant differences in annual mileage (km per year) between males and females (Ms = 18 190 and 10 243.24, F = 17.43, p < .001), which led us to correct the results for its potential effects on gender differences in driving-related variables. Some authors have found gender differences in driving-related variables to vanish if the variable “exposure” is considered (Lawton et al. 1997). This means that some differences between males and females are related to men’s greater driving frequency.
1
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, Illinois: IBM Corp. 2011
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
As can be seen from Table 1, if driving frequency is included as a covariate, males had more positive attitudes to drink driving and perceived less disapproval of this behaviour from their significant others (viz., parents and peers). Also, males reported DUI behaviours to a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
greater extent, and had significantly higher AUDIT scores than females. On the other hand, the results of the covariance analysis (ANCOVA) suggest that females felt more able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations and were more prone to underestimating their own risk of adopting DUI behaviours. Table 2 shows the partial correlations found between variables by gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency (km per year).
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
Perceived disapproval from peers and parents was positively correlated in males and in females. Both variables were additionally correlated positively with perceived self-efficacy in avoiding drinking-and-driving situations in both males and females. On the other hand, subjective norms were negatively correlated with AUDIT scores and drink driving. In addition, the subscale peers’ norms was correlated with self-efficacy (positively in males and negatively in females). Therefore, perceived disapproval of DUI behaviours from significant others is associated with an increased perception of drivers’ control and driving self-efficacy.
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI behaviours was negatively correlated with AUDIT scores and DUI behaviours in both males and females (i.e., a low perception of self-control on the “drinking and driving” behaviour was associated with increased alcohol consumption and with an also increased self-reported frequency of DUI behaviours). Driving self-efficacy was negatively correlated with driving and riding optimism bias, but
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
only in females. The high driving self-efficacy scores of females were related to an underestimated perception of the risk associated with drink driving or riding with a drunk driver and their potential consequences (e.g., having an accident, being fined, losing licence points, dying or being injured, being arrested by the police). Finally, AUDIT scores were significantly correlated, in a positive manner, with the overall score of DUI behaviours in both genders (see Table 2). This means that high AUDIT scores are associated with increased scores for DUI behaviours. We used hierarchical multiple regression to confirm the significance of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour and biases in the prediction of drink driving (Table 3).
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
The finding that self-reported frequency of DUI behaviours was influenced by driving frequency (F = 3.24, p < .01) led us to include this variable in block 1 in order to control its effect. This block was expanded with AUDIT scores in order to consider the potential effect of alcohol consumption. The variables of the theory of planned behaviour (viz., DUI attitudes,
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) were included in block 2 and those relating to cognitive bias (viz., optimistic bias) in block 3. Also, the significant differences between males and females warranted separate analysis of the results for each gender (see Table 3). The two regression models used accounted for a substantial fraction of DUI behaviours in
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
males (Corrected R2 = .54) and females (Corrected R2 = .50). Driving frequency (block 1) was no significant predictor in either gender. As can be seen from Table 3, AUDIT scores accounted for 31% and 17% of the variance in DUI behaviours in males and females, respectively. Process variables, which were included in block 2, explained 22% and 32% of the variance in the results for males and females, respectively. Drink driving attitudes and selfefficacy in avoiding DUI behaviours contributed significantly to the predictive ability of the model in both males and females. Perceived disapproval from peers and perceived driving selfefficacy were also good predictors of DUI behaviours in males and females, respectively. Optimistic bias (block 3) increased the fraction of explained variance in DUI behaviours in females only; the increase was small but significant (1%, Table 3).
DISCUSSION Overall, our results reveal substantial differences in driving behaviours between genders and provide further evidence of the validity of the TPB. Subjective peer norms and perceived behavioural control were found to be significant predictors of drink driving with provision for driving frequency and drinking. Contrary to our predictions, however, optimism bias was a minor significant predictor of DUI behaviours in females only.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In our study, females feel more self-efficacious to avoid drinking-and-driving situations and adopt self-regulatory behaviours (Gwyther and Holland 2012). On the other hand, males were heavier alcohol users than females; also, they performed DUI behaviours more often. These results, which are consistently apparent from official files of driving offenses, have also been found in research based on self-reported information (Begg et al. 2003; Ferreira et al. 2009;
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Olivera et al. 2002; Ryb et al. 2006) and cannot be exclusively ascribed to an increased driving frequency in males; rather, the increased susceptibility of males to violating DUI norms must be influenced by additional variables (Åberg and Rimmö 1998; Lonczak et al. 2007; Mesken et al. 2002). Such variables may be beliefs and social pressure. Our results indicate that males are more prone to drink driving and to perceive less disapproval of this behaviour by their significant others (parents and peers). The less negative perception of violating traffic norms typical of males has emerged in a number of studies (Jewell et al. 2004; McCarthy et al. 2006) and been associated to a decreased motivation to abide by speed limits and traffic norms (Whissell and Bigelow 2003; Yagil 1998). The effect is increased by their assumptions regarding the degree of disapproval of these behaviours (i.e., descriptive norms) by their significant others and their perception of their parents’ and peers’ opinions regarding the suitability of performing risky behaviours (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2009). As a result, males —particularly young men— tend to perceive greater approval of breaking traffic norms by their others (Horvath et al. 2012; Parker et al. 1992) and to believe that the people whose opinions they appreciate would approve of their speeding or drink driving (Cestac et al. 2011). An identical conclusion was previously drawn by Pimentão (2008) from a study on youths 21–22 years of age.
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Consistent with previous findings (Parker et al. 1992), parents are seemingly much less influential than peers in this respect. This is what one would expect from 18–30 year olds, most of whom are presumably in college or living on their own. This does not mean that parents were not references for our youths, but rather that their parents may have been more influential at other stages of the life cycle. Based on the theory of social learning, Gulliver and Begg (2004)
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
showed the significance of inappropriate behavioral models at an early age and how the persistence of a specific model leads to standardization of the associated behavior; thus, the experience of riding with drunk-driving adults is associated to riding with drunk-driving peers and increases the likelihood of youths accepting that DUI behavior and eventually adopting it themselves. Our results also reveal a close relationship of rational and cognitive variables with drink driving, and account for a substantial fraction of the variance in this variable. Peers’ subjective norms, low self-efficacy in avoiding drink driving and attitudes to DUI behaviours are the greatest specific contributors to the variable. As noted earlier, a low self-efficacy in avoiding drink driving is one of the best predictors of DUI behaviours. In other words, the perceived difficulty of using strategies to avoid drink driving (e.g., avoiding drinking alcohol, leaving the car and returning home by other means) is a good predictor of DUI behaviours. These results are consistent with those of Liourta and van Empelen (2008) for a sample of 361 Greek students and highlight the importance of encouraging the development of alternative skills and behaviours in drivers who are clearly committed to refraining from DUI behaviours but find it rather difficult to avoid them. Also, perceived peers’ disapproval of DUI behaviours plays a more prominent role than do DUI attitudes in drink driving in males. This result contradicts those of Yagil (2001)
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for Israeli soldiers and Marcil et al. (2001) for Canadian male undergraduates —their attitudes had an increased predictive value— but it is in line with those of Parker et al. (1992) for the intention of adopting various risky driving behaviours. Underestimation of the risks of drink driving and a biased perception of the risk of riding with a drunk driver were also relatively weak predictors of DUI behaviours, but only in females.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Our results additionally suggest the presence of significant relationships between biases, and also with driving efficacy in females (see Table 2). Possibly, women exhibiting this bias tend to minimize the consequences on themselves on some risky behaviours, especially if they feel capable of controlling them (i.e., if they believe their driving skills will allow them to react properly and continue to drive while drunk) (De Craen et al. 2011). This increased bias in situations that are perceived as more easily controlled has also been used by other authors to explain the scarcely deterrent effect of messages warning regarding the risks of some traffic norm violations (Klein and Helweg-Larsen, 2002; Moen and Rundmo, 2005). These results can have implications with a view to developing effective prevention and intervention programmes. In this respect, the substantial influence of subjective social norms on DUI behaviours suggests the need to intervene in normative pressures to prevent drunk driving —particularly in males. Male youths are more prone to adopting risky behaviours, having a more positive perception of such behaviours (e.g., focusing on the potential benefits rather than on the risks) and making riskier decisions (e.g., choosing riskier courses of action) when acting in group (Gardner and Steinberg 2005). For this reason, it may be useful to act on group norms or on young people’s perception of the norms. Previous studies shown that youths tend to perceive a higher than actual prevalence of DUI behaviours in their environment (Linkenbach and Perkins
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2003; Kenney et al. 2013), and also that changing that perception via social norms and media marketing campaigns can substantially reduce the prevalence of DUI behaviours (Perkins et al. 2010). Also, given the significance of self-efficacy to drink driving, it might be useful to enhance perceived control in drivers and to train them in the use of self-regulatory and planning
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
strategies, which are directly related to cognitive development of plans of action and the control mechanisms that facilitate perseverance and constancy in a given behaviour (Liourta and van Empelen 2008; Elliott et al. 2003). In this respect, Bandura (1986) himself outlined three ways in which perceptions of control over a given behaviour (i.e., self-efficacy) can be enhanced, namely: (a) via personal experiences leading to the pursuance and fulfilment of goals (e.g., by avoiding situations where the drinking–driving couple is the sole choice); (b) by seeing others who choose not to drink if they have to drive (e.g., by modelling celebrities who clearly state that they will not drink and drive); and (c) via standard persuasion techniques. These strategies were successfully used by Elliott and Armitage (2009) on a group of 300 drivers from the southeast of the United Kingdom in order to promote compliance with speed limits; they found significantly increased self-control beliefs in the drivers by effect of the intervention. Moreover, interventions should focus on having young people assess their own vulnerability in a more realistic manner and recognize the dangers of drink driving. Such is the purpose of the training courses proposed by Perrissol et al. (2011) and of some experimental manipulations examined by White et al. (2011) in young drivers performing simulation tasks. Because this information by itself cannot ensure effective promotion and maintenance of changes in both behaviours and beliefs (Planes 1993), additional measures aimed at training
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT young drivers in the specific skills required to develop efficacious preventive attitudes (e.g., assertiveness) should be adopted. The ultimate aim should be to have young people commit themselves to preventive driving behaviours and rejecting risky behaviours. According to Harré et al. (2005), crash-risk optimism bias is more effectively mitigated by advertisements demonstrating cautious driving choices (e.g, showing one or more people drinking and then
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
avoiding driving) than by those illustrating dangerous driving leading to a crash. For this reason, it is crucial to encourage youths to plan their alternatives to drink driving beforehand. Under the motto “don’t drive to drinking locations”, night transport networks are striving to help young people not only control how much they drink, but also their very drinking behaviour (McKnight et al. 1995). Most drunk drivers had initially intended not to drink; however, group pressure and the effects of alcohol on their cognitive abilities led them to change their minds. Alternative transport can thus help prevent drunk participants from driving. A similar intent underlies Preventing Alcohol Related Conviction (PARC), an intervention programme aimed at young drivers fined for drink driving in Florida (Rider et al. 2006). The programme used educational sessions and group interaction to have youths become aware of the difficulty of controlling what one drinks and invite them to leave the car at home when they go out —the figure of the “designated driver” was deemed a potential risk for youths. Participants in PARC self-reported substantial reductions in their recidivism rates one and two years after taking part in the programme (Rider et al. 2007). Despite the significance of the ensuing conclusions, the results of this survey are subject to some limitations related to the cross-sectional structure of the data, which precludes causal inferences. Also, it is subject to methodological limitations deriving from the potential sampling
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT bias in selecting the participants; thus, our sample may have differed from the general young population in some respects. A longitudinal study on a larger, more representative sample of the Spanish young population might therefore confirm or refute the present results. To our minds, it would be interesting to improve the scales in terms of size in the future. Thus, the perceived driving self-efficacy scale comprises only 2 items when a minimum of 3 is
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
believed to be required for a scale exploring a single dominion or factor (Streiner 1994; Oviedo and Campo-Arias 2005). There may also have been some bias in assessing drivers’ perception of risks. The presence of optimistically biased estimates of risk was exposed by comparative risk judgments. Participants rated their likelihood of experiencing some event on an anchored single scale. Optimistic bias was operationalized as a mean response below the scale midpoint —indicating that one’s own likelihood of experiencing the event is less than the average person’s likelihood— , but respondents could be accurately assessing their risk. Also, some participants may have misinterpreted the question regarding the likelihood of having a negative consequence after drinking relative to the risk of driving sober. For example, “having a few alcoholic drinks” is not necessarily the same as being “drunk.”
In sum, this paper examines the role of TPB theoretical framework in explaining driving behaviour in Spanish young adults. Data were collected in an individual manner by incidental sampling via a questionnaire. Our results contribute new empirical evidence for a certain ability to predict DUI behaviours from subjective peer norms and self-efficacy; also, they point to a limited usefulness of an additional variable examined here: optimism bias. In addition, the results
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT obtained with provision for the effect of driving frequency and alcohol consumption reveal differences in driving behaviours between genders. Thus, males were more prone to drink driving, perceived less disapproval by their parents and peers, and felt less able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations. Also, they self-reported more frequent DUI behaviors and alcohol consumption. Identifying the specific factors potentially contributing to driving
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
performance may be useful with a view to informing campaigns aimed at preventing DUI behaviours in young drivers (e.g., modifying normative beliefs, enhancing perceptions of control over the behaviour —self-efficacy—, and fostering alternatives to driving to drinking locations). Although avoiding “driving under the influence” is an ambitious goal, continued research may be helpful to shape public policy surrounding these issues and lead to a reduction in this hazardous behaviour. This will require overcoming some methodological constraints (e.g., the design of the study, sample, questionnaires and scales) in order to ensure accuracy and reliability in the results.
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT REFERENCES Åberg L, Rimmö P. Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour. Ergonomics. 1998;41:39–56. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1991;50: 179–211. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice–Hall; 1980.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Anderson P., Baumberg B. Alcohol in Europe. London, Institute of Alcohol Studies; 2006. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Cognitive Social Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice–Hall; 1986. Bandura A. Pensamiento y acción. Fundamentos sociales. Barcelona: Martínez Roca; 1987. Begg DJ., Langley JD., Stephenson S. Identifying factors that predict persistent driving after drinking, unsafe driving after drinking, and driving after using cannabis among young adults. Accident Anal Prev. 2003;35:669–675. Cadaveira F. Alcohol y cerebro adolescente. Adicciones. 2009;21 9–14. Calafat A, Adrover D, Juan M., Blay NT. Relación del consumo de alcohol y drogas de los jóvenes españoles con la siniestralidad vial durante la vida recreativa nocturna en tres comunidades autónomas en 2007. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2008;82:323–331. Cestac J, Paran F, Delhomme P. Young drivers’ sensation seeking, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control and their roles in predicting speeding intention: How risktaking motivations evolve with gender and driving experience. Safety Sci. 2011;49:424– 432. Concha D, Bilbao MA, Gallardo I, Páez D, Fresno A. Sesgos cognitivos y su relación con el bienestar subjetivo. Salud & Sociedad. 2012;3:115–129.
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT De Craen S, Twisk DAM, Hagenzieker MP, Elffers H, Brookhuis KA. Do young novice drivers overestimate their driving skills more than experienced drivers? Different methods lead to different conclusions. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:1660–1665. Dejoy DM. The optimism bias and traffic accident risk perception. Accident Anal Prev. 1989;21:333–340.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Dillard AJ, Midboe AM, Klein WMP. The dark side of optimism: Unrealistic optimism about problems with alcohol predicts subsequent negative event experiences. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2009;35:1540–1550. Dirección General de Tráfico. Las principales cifras de la siniestralidad vial. España 2011. Madrid: Dirección General de Tráfico; 2012. Dobson A, Brown W, Ball J, Powers J, McFadden M. Women drivers’ behaviour, sociodemographic characteristics and accidents. Accident Anal Prev. 1999;31:525–535. Elliott MA, Armitage CJ. Promoting drivers’ compliance with speed limits: Testing an intervention based on the theory of planned behaviour. Brit J Psychol, 2009;100:111– 132. Elliott MA, Armitage CJ, Baughan CJ. Drivers compliance with speed limits: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88: 964–972. European Road Safety Observatory. Alcohol. 2006. Available at: http://www.erso.eu. Accessed January 25, 2007. Evans JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255–278. Ferreira AI, Martínez LF, Guisande A. Risky behavior, personality traits and road accidents
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT among university students. Eur J Edu Psycho. 2009;2:79–98. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press; 2009. Gardner M, Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Dev Psychol.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
2005;41:625–635. Gibbons FX, Houlihan AE, Gerrard M. Reason and reaction: The utility of a dual-focus, dualprocessing perspective on promotion and prevention of adolescent health risk behaviour. Brit J Health Psych. 209;14:231–248. Gras ME. Efecto de las pérdidas y ganancias recientes en el riesgo asumido por los automovilistas. Psicothema. 1994;6:123–137. Gras ME, Planes M, Font-Mayolas S, Cunill M. Los comportamientos de riesgo en la conducción de vehículos: La perspectiva psicológica. In: Fundación RACC Automóvil Club, ed. Jóvenes y conducción: un derecho y una responsabilidad. Comisión de expertos para el estudio de la problemática de los jóvenes y la seguridad vial. Informe de ponencias, enero de 2007. Barcelona: Fundación RACC Automóvil Club; 2007:86–96. Greening L, Chandler CC. Why it can’t happen to me: The base rate matters, but overestimating skill leads to underestimating risk. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27:760–780. Greening L, Stoppelbein L. Young drivers’ health attitudes and intentions to drink and drive. J Adolescent Health. 2000;27:94–101. Gulliver P, Begg D. Influences during adolescence on perceptions and behaviour related to alcohol use and unsafe driving as young adults. Accident Anal Prev. 2004;36:773–781.
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Gwyther H, Holland C. The effect of age, gender and attitudes on self-regulation in driving. Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:19–28. Harré N, Foster S, O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. Brit J Psychpl. 2005;96:215–230. Helwerg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA. Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
risk estimates? A review of the literature. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5:74–95. Horvath C, Lewis IM, Watson BC. The beliefs which motivate young male and female drivers to speed: a comparison of low and high intenders. Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:334–341. Jewell J, Hupp S, Luttrell G. The effectiveness of fatal vision goggles: Disentangling experiential versus onlooker effects. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 2004;48:63–84. Jewell, J, Hupp, S, Segrist, D. Assessing DUI risk: Examination of the Behaviors & Attitudes Drinking & Driving Scale (BADDS). Addict Behav. 2008;33:853–865. Kenney SR, LaBrie JW, Lac A. Injunctive peer misperceptions and the mediation of selfapproval on risk for driving after drinking among college students. J Health Commun. 2013;18:459–477. Klein CTF, Helweg-Larsen M. Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Health. 2002;17:437–446. Kulick D, Rosenberg H. Assessment of university students' coping strategies and reasons for driving in high-risk drinking-driving situations. Accident Anal Prev. 2000;32;85–94. Lawton R, Parker D, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG. The role of affect in predicting social behaviors: The case of read traffic violations. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27:1258–1276.
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Linkenbach J W, Perkins HW. Misperceptions of peer alcohol norms in a statewide survey of young adults. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA; 2003. Liourta E, van Empelen P. The importance of self-regulatory and goal-conflicting processes in the avoidance of drunk driving among Greek young drivers. Accident Anal Prev. 2008;40;1191–1199.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Lonczak HS, Neighbors C, Donovan DM. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Anal Prev. 2007;39;536–545. Marcil I, Bergeron J., Audet T. Motivational factors underlying the intention to drink and drive in young male drivers. J Safety Res. 2001;32;636–376. Matthews ML, Moran AR. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability. Accident Anal Prev. Special Issue: Youth and Traffic Accident Risk. 1986;18:299–313. McCarthy DM, Pedersen SL. Reciprocal associations between drinking-and-driving behavior and cognitions in adolescents. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70:536–542. McCarthy DM, Pedersen SL, Thompsen DM, Leuty ME. Development of a measure of drinking and driving expectancies for youth. Psychol Assessment. 2006;18:155–164. McKnight AJ, Lange JE, McKnight AS. Why people drink and drive: The basis of drinking-anddriving decisions. In: Kloeden CN, McLean E, Eds. Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Vol. 1. Adelaide, Australia, NHMRC, University of Adelaide; 1995:143–147. Mesken J, Lajunen T, Summala H. Interpersonal violations, speeding violations and their relation to accident involvement in Finland. Ergonomics. 2002;45;469–483. Moen BE, Rundmo T. Predictors of unrealistic optimism: a study of Norwegian risk takers. J
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Risk Res. 2005;8:363–382. Nemme HE, White KM. Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people’s texting intentions and behavior. Accident Anal Prev. 2010;42:1257–1265. Newman S, Watson B, Murray W. Factors predicting intentions to speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2004;7:287–300.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Olivera C, Planes M, Cunill M, Gras ME. Efectos del alcohol y conducción de vehículos: Creencias y conductas de los jóvenes. Revista Española de Drogodependencias. 2002;27:66–80. Oviedo HC, Campo-Arias A. Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Rev Col Psiqui, 2005,34:572–580. Parker D, Manstead AS, Stradling SG, Reason JT. Determinants of intention to commit driving violations. Accident Anal Prev. 1992;24:117–131. Perkins HW, Linkenbach JW, Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Effectiveness of social norms media marketing in reducing drinking and driving: A statewide campaign. Addict Behav. 2010;35:866–874. Perrissol S, Smeding A, Laumond F, Le Floch V. Effect of a road safety training program on drivers’ comparative optimism. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:478–482. Pimentão C. Análise do comportamento de risco ao volante de jovens condutores com base na teoria do comportamento planeado de Ajzen. Revista da Facultade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais. 2008;5:202–217. Planes M. Percepción del riesgo personal de infección con el VIH en estudiantes universitarios: Implicaciones respecto a la adopción de comportamientos preventivos. Análisis y
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Modificación de Conducta. 1993;19:845–858. Parker D, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG, Reason JT, Baxter JS. Intention to commit driving violations: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol. 1992;77:94–101. Rider R, Kelley-Baker T, Voas RB., Murphy B, McKnight AJ, Levings, C. The impact of a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
novel educational curriculum for first-time DUI offenders on intermediate outcomes relevant to DUI recidivism. Accident Anal Prev. 2006;38:482–489. Rider R, Voas RB, Kelly-Baker T, Grosz M, Murphy B. Preventing alcohol-related convictions: The effect of a novel curriculum for first-time offenders on DUI recidivism. Traffic Inj Prev. 2007;8:147–152. Rubio G, Bermejo J, Caballero MC, Santo-Domingo J. Validación de la prueba para la identificación de trastornos por uso de alcohol (AUDIT) en atención primaria. Revista Clínica Española. 1998;198:11–14. Ryb GE, Dischinger PC, Kufera JA, Read KM. Risk perception and impulsivity: Association with risky behaviors and substance abuse disorders. Accident Anal Prev. 2006;38:567– 573. Snow RW, Wells-Parker E. Relationships between drinking problems and drinking locations among convicted drinking drivers. Amer J Drug Alc Abuse. 2001;27:531–542. Streiner DL. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Can J Psychiatry, 1994;39:135–140. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:806– 820.
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility of health problems. J Behav Med. 1982; 5: 441–460. Weinstein ND. Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol. 1984;3:431–457. Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. J Soc Clin Psychol.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1984;15:1–8. Whissel RW, Bigelow BJ. The Speeding Attitude Scale and the role of sensation seeking in profiling young drivers at risk. Risk Analysis. 2003;23:811–820. White MJ, Cunningham LC, Titchener K. Young drivers’ optimism bias for accident risk and driving skill: Accountability and insight experience manipulations. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:1309–1315. Wickens CM, Mann RE, Stoduto G, Butters JE, Ialomiteanu A, Smart RG. Does gender moderate the relationship between driver aggression and its risk factors? Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:10–18. Yagil D. Gender and age-related differences in attitudes towards traffic laws and traffic violations. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 1998;1:123–135.
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Mean scores as adjusted for driving frequency and gender differences. Total
Females
.97 (.55)
Males Mean (SD) 1.17 (.57)
.84 (.50)
20.53***
0-4 0-4
2.97 (.93) 3.66 (.54)
2.61 (1.01) 3.48 (.69)
3.21 (.79) 3.78 (.36)
21.47*** 15.48***
Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI Driving self-efficacy
0-4 0-4
3.11 (.65) 2.41 (.72)
2.85 (.70) 2.49 (.70)
3.29 (.56) 2.36 (.73)
23.45*** n.s.
Driving optimist bias Riding optimist bias
0-4 0-4
–.28 (1.62) –.18 (1.32)
–.02 (1.57) –.07 (1.25)
–.45 (1.63) –.25 (1.36)
5.44* n.s.
AUDIT DUI behaviours
0-40 0-4
6.71 (4.92) .56 (.67)
8.09 (5.29) .79 (.79)
5.81 (4.47) .42 (.53)
13.72*** 14.63***
Range 0-4
Disapproval by peers Disapproval by parents Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
DUI attitudes
F
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, n.s. = not significant
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Partial correlations by gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1
1. DUI attitudes 2. Disapproval by peers 3. Disapproval by parents 4. DUI self-efficacy 5. Driving self-efficacy 6. Driving bias 7. Riding bias 8. AUDIT 9. DUI behaviours
2 3 4 –.49*** –.27*** –.61*** –.25* .28*** .47*** –.37*** .31** .32*** –.55*** .32*** .52*** –.11 .20* .13 .14 –.13 .01 .11 –.03 –.09 .02 .20 .06 .35*** –.26** –.06 –.48*** .47*** –.51*** –.30** –.60***
5 .09 –.17* –.12 .01 –.16 –.06 .06 –.17
6 –.05 .12 .12 .05 –.17* .81*** .07 .11
7 – .02 .15 – –.15* .82*** .06 .02
8 9 .31*** .50*** –.19* –.35*** –.15 –.16 –.36*** –.65*** –.04 .16* –.05 –.02 –.01 –.04 .41*** .55***
Correlations in females are shown above the diagonal and correlations in males below it * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Figures of merit of the hierarchical regression analysis used to predict drink driving by gender. N = 110 / 164 Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1
R2(Corrected R2) ♂ ♀ .32 (31) .18 (.17)
β 1st step ♂ ♀ .19* .54***
Driving frequency (km/yr) AUDIT
.13 .41***
β 2nd step ♂ ♀
β 3rd step ♂ ♀
.03 .29***
.10 .20**
.05 .28**
.11 .21***
.13 –.30*** .01 –.29** –.08
.12 –.01 .09 –.54*** .18**
.17* –.31*** .01 –.26* –.05
.11 –.03 .10 –.54*** .18**
–.21 –.14
–.23* –.22*
.57 (.53) .51 (.49)
2 DUI attitudes Disapproval by peers Disapproval by parents Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI Driving self-efficacy
.58 (.54) .53 (.50)
3 Driving bias Riding bias ♂ males, ♀ females * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Traffic Injury Prevention Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20
Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults a
a
Beatriz González-Iglesias , José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela & Jorge Sobral
b
a
University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain b
University of Santiago de Compostela, Social Psychology, Campus sur s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain Accepted author version posted online: 18 Aug 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Beatriz González-Iglesias, José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela & Jorge Sobral (2014): Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults, Traffic Injury Prevention, DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2014.946500 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.946500
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Potential determinants of drink driving in young adults Beatriz González-Iglesias1, Dr José Antonio Gómez-Fraguela1, Jorge Sobral2
1
University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida
s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
2
University of Santiago de Compostela, Social Psychology, Campus sur s/n, Santiago de
Compostela, 15782 Spain
Address correspondence to Beatriz González-Iglesias, University of Santiago de Compostela, Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Campus Vida s/n, Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Spain; Email: [email protected]
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract Objective: The main purposes of this study were to examine the usefulness of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour (viz., attitudes, social norms and self-efficacy) and to explore the relationship between optimism bias and drink driving in young adults. In addition, we explored gender differences in drink driving with provision for the effect of variables such as
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
driving frequency and alcohol consumption. Methods: Data were collected via a questionnaire administered to 274 drivers (59.9% females) aged 18–30 years (24.36 ± 2.96). Results: The results obtained with provision for driving frequency revealed substantial differences in driving behaviours between genders. Thus, males were more prone to drink driving, perceived less disapproval by their significant others (parents and peers) and felt less able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations. Also, they self-reported more frequent alcohol consumption and driving under the influence. The results also confirm the significance of peers’ subjective norms and attitudes to drink driving in males. Overconfidence in their own driving skills for driving drunk, and perceived behavioural control, were found to be significant predictors for drink driving in females. Optimism bias also played a slightly significant role in predicting drink driving, but only in females. Conclusions: The important practical implications of these results with a view to designing effective interventions to prevent the risks associated with drink driving in the young population are discussed. Interventions should focus on young people’s perception of group norms and on promoting cautionary driving choices and alternatives to drink driving. Key words: social norms; self-efficacy; optimism bias; drink driving.
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT INTRODUCTION Alcohol abuse is one of the factors most closely associated to traffic accidents, and to risky and dangerous driving behaviours (Dobson et al. 1999; Lonczak et al. 2007; McCarthy and Pedersen 2009; Snow et al. 2001). An estimated one-fourth of all accidents in Europe each year is due to drink driving. Also, the prevalence of driving above the legal alcohol limit (0.5 g/l) amounts to
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1% of the driving population and that 1% causes 25% of all road accidents recorded in Europe each year (ERSO 2006). Although driving legislation in Spain has lately been strengthened with the introduction of the penalty-point driving license and various road safety related reforms of the Penal Code, most crashes where a person is killed in Spain involve a driver who was exceeding the legal alcohol limit (Dirección General de Tráfico 2012). Alcohol is also a major factor for accidents in young drivers, especially at night and weekends (Calafat et al. 2008). In fact, drink driving is estimated to be involved in at least 50% of all road accidents among the youth (Anderson and Baumberg 2006). Young people’s inexperience with alcohol and driving has been deemed one of the main reasons why alcohol consumption affects their driving skill more markedly than in adults (Kulick and Rosenberg 2000). In fact, youths are typically less alcohol-tolerant than adults and alcohol has especially marked neuropsychological effects on a developing brain (Cadaveira 2009). Also, driving is an especially demanding task for novice drivers, who are 6 times more prone to have an accident with a blood alcohol level of 0.50 g/l than without drinking. In addition, self-control mechanisms are less developed in youths, who tend to be more emotional and impulsive —and hence to exhibit riskier behaviours— than older drivers (Wickens et al. 2012).
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Researchers have proposed various psychological factors as determinants of driving behaviour. Such factors are cognitive–emotional and social variables which facilitate the identification of the specific behaviours exhibited under also specific circumstances. Many such variables are used in the different models developed so far to explain various risky and healthy behaviours. Such is the case with the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
that of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991). The theory of reasoned action predicts that the decision to adopt a given behaviour is governed by positive and/or favourable attitudes towards that behaviour, the presence of a supportive social environment and individual motivation to comply with references (viz., subjective social norms). In a subsequent development of the theory of reasoned action, Ajzen (1991) addressed those behaviours which are not under an individual’s absolute control. Thus, he introduced the perceived behavioural control construct, which is conceptually very close to the self-efficacy concept of Bandura (1987), as a determinant of the intention to adopt a given behaviour in addition to attitudes and subjective norms. According to the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), individuals will drive drunk if they (a) believe that they have the skill to drive in that condition and that no hindrance to adopting that behaviour (e.g., the presence of drink driving controls nearby) seemingly exists; (b) judge the specific behaviour favourably (e.g., it allows them to get home earlier); and (c) perceive that their references (peers, partner, family) do not disapprove of drink driving, so they are motivated to follow their advice. The theory of planned behaviour has been used to explain various driving behaviours such as use of the mobile phone (Nemme and White 2010; Zhou et al. 2009), traffic violations
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (Parker et al. 1992) and speeding (Elliott et al. 2003; Newnam et al. 2004). If, as advocated by healthy behaviour models, a given behaviour is the result of a conscious decision made by individuals after assessing previous history and potential consequences, why do they decide to adopt risky behaviours such as drink driving in spite of the objective, perceivable risks they involve? This question has raised the need to consider an alternative decision-making process.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Such a process focuses on impulsive decisions led by emotional reactions to specific situations or based on heuristics such as young people’s feeling of invulnerability or their perception of a selfcontrol ability that leads them to underestimate the potential risk of their behaviours (Evans 2008; Gibbons et al. 2009). The feeling of invulnerability, also known as optimistic bias or unrealistic optimism (Weinstein 1980, 1984), can be defined as the tendency of some people to believe that their likelihood of having adverse consequences is lower and that of succeeding higher than in the others. Although an optimistic bias can have positive connotations and help individuals adjust to their environment —in terms of self-esteem or motivation, for example— it can also lead to feelings of invulnerability (Concha et al. 2012). According to Weinstein, the feeling of invulnerability is a major predictor of risky behaviours, so it should have a negative effect on decisions to adopt such behaviours (Dillard et al. 2009). The optimistic bias has been examined in relation to the response to a wide variety of situations including road accidents, earthquakes, depression and unwanted pregnancy (Weinstein 1982, 1996). Drivers are not immune to optimistic bias. Since most, but particularly male youths, overestimate their driving skills (Dejoy 1989; Harré et al. 2005) and believe they are better than the average driver, they tend to feel invulnerable to unpleasant events (Matthews and Moran
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1986). That feeling of invulnerability can influence their perceptual judgements and, ultimately, the behaviours they adopt by effect of their underestimating the associated risk (Greening and Chandler 1997). A number of studies have demonstrated the presence of an optimistic bias in perceiving the risk of accidents (Gras 1994). Based on their results, previous experience with accidents is a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
predictor of the feeling of vulnerability to them; in fact, those individuals who have or know someone who has had an accident feel more vulnerable than those without this experience. However, having a road accident oneself or in the family does not predict the adoption of a preventive behaviour such as using the safety belt. In other words, someone who has had an accident or knows someone close who has tends to be more vulnerable to another accident, but this does not necessarily lead to wiser driving (Gras et al. 2007). Similarly, the high perceptions of some drivers about their own driving skills are associated to a feeling of less vulnerability to an accident. In fact, those drivers who feel scarcely vulnerable to having an accident are less motivated to take driving education courses and more prone to risky behaviours such as reckless driving or jumping red lights (White et al. 2011). Based on the foregoing, in this work we studied the potential determinants of drink driving in young males and females. The primary aim of this work was to assess the relationship of optimism bias with the variables of the theory of planned behaviour and drink driving in a sample of young adults. A secondary aim was to check whether a biased perception of the risks associated with DUI behaviours are significant predictors of drink driving. The variables of the theory of planned behaviour were expected to predict drink driving and a biased perception of the ensuing risks was expected to account for a substantial portion of such behaviours. Finally,
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT since gender has been deemed a relevant factor for studying driving behaviours, we assessed to what extent potential determinants of drinking driving vary as a function of gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency and consumption of alcohol.
METHODS
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Participants The study was conducted on 274 drivers aged 18–30 (24.36 ± 2.96 yr) of whom 59.9% were females. All information was obtained in an individual manner by incidental sampling among volunteering students of the University of Santiago de Compostela (NW Spain) and individuals from the authors’ personal and work environments over the period April to June 2011. Participants included Psychology and Criminology undergraduates (N = 115, 69.56% females) and several non-university participants (N = 159, 52.20% females) of similar characteristics (social status, ethnicity, income level) from various locations in Galicia (NW Spain). The participants had obtained their driving license in the previous 12 years (average = 5.51 ± 2.98 yr) and reported driving around 13 000 kilometres each year (range, 500–50 000 km/yr).
Materials A questionnaire booklet was compiled to assess each of the following variables in sequence: Positive attitudes to drink driving: A Spanish translation of the Attitudes on Drinking and Driving Scale (ADDS) (Jewell et al.; Jewell et al. 2008) was developed for this study. The ADDS comprises 12 items (e.g., “I believe it is okay to drink and drive if it is daytime”) scored on a Likert scale from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). A high score on an
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ADDS item indicates a positive attitude to the behaviour concerned. The ADDS has a reliability index of .82. Subjective social norms: The influence of normative beliefs of the reference groups and the participants’ motivation to comply with them was assessed by using an 8-item scale in two parts. One part consisted of 4 items assessing disapproval of drink driving by peers (α = .87) and the
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
other of 4 related to parents’ perceived norms (α = .67). All items (e.g., “Your friends/your parents would disapprove of you driving after having more than four drinks”) were scored from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). High scores on these scales indicate strong disapproval of DUI behaviours from parent and friends. Perceived behavioural control: This variable was assessed via 9 items distributed between two subscales, namely: Self-efficacy to avoid a DUI behaviour and Perceived driving self-efficacy. The former subscale consisted of 7 items and assessed the degree of control of drinking and “avoiding drinking and driving” behaviours as perceived by the drivers themselves (α = .73). The items included the drivers’ own judgements on their ability to perform at a given level (“I can…”) and the difficulty of performing a given behaviour (“It would be easy / difficult for me to…”). The latter subscale was an index of 2 items (“I drive better than most of the people I know” and “I think I am a good driver”) which assessed the tendency of drivers of all ages to overestimate their driving skills and believe that they are better than the average driver. Responses to this subscale were also scored on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (“completely disagree”) to 4 (“completely agree”). Optimism bias: Subjective perceptions of the drivers’ ability to have some negative consequence from drink driving was assessed by using 8 items in the form of conditional
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT judgements (e.g., “Compared to other people of your age and sex, how likely are you to have a road accident if you drive after having a few alcoholic drinks?”). The target for comparison was an “average person” of the same age and sex. The 8 items were distributed between two subscales measuring vulnerability to some adverse consequence (e.g., having an accident, being injured or die, being fined or arrested by the police, losing licence points) from drink driving (5
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
items) or riding with a drunk driver (3 items). The Cronbach’s alpha value for these subscales was .95 and .82, respectively. The items were scored on a 7-choice scale ranging from –3 (“well below the average”) through 0 (“like the average”) to +3 (“well above the average”). Negative scores indicated that the drivers underestimated their own risk in performing a DUI behaviour, positive scores suggested that they overestimated their own risk, and a zero score that they made an unbiased judgement of their vulnerability while driving (e.g. Dejoy 1989; Helwerg-Larsen and Shepperd 2001). Alcohol use: The Spanish version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) developed by Rubio et al. (1998) was used to assess alcohol use. The AUDIT consists of ten items regarding recent use, dependence symptoms and alcohol-related problems. Each item was scored from 0 to 4. By exception, items 9 and 10 were scored 0, 2 or 4. The individual item scores were combined to obtain a total AUDIT score (α = .78). Driving under the influence / DUI behaviours: Drink driving —in what follows “DUI behaviours”— was assessed on an ad hoc 4-item scale where each item was scored from 0 (“never”) to 4 (“many times”) depending on the frequency each driver had performed the following DUI behaviours during the previous year: “Driving after having some drink”, “Driving
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT after having more than four drinks”; “Riding with someone who had drunk to excess”; “Driving after taking drugs”). The reliability index of this scale was .76. Demographic variables: In addition, we asked the participants to provide socio-demographic information regarding their driving history: experience (year they obtained their driving licence)
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
and driving frequency (measured in kilometers per year).
Procedure All participants received a copy of the different questionnaires to be completed and were asked to select the specific choice best fitting their case for each item. Strict confidentiality throughout the assessment process was assured. Data were processed with the statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics v. 201
RESULTS Table 1 shows the scores of the variables examined by gender as adjusted for driving frequency on account of the presence of significant differences in annual mileage (km per year) between males and females (Ms = 18 190 and 10 243.24, F = 17.43, p < .001), which led us to correct the results for its potential effects on gender differences in driving-related variables. Some authors have found gender differences in driving-related variables to vanish if the variable “exposure” is considered (Lawton et al. 1997). This means that some differences between males and females are related to men’s greater driving frequency.
1
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Chicago, Illinois: IBM Corp. 2011
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
As can be seen from Table 1, if driving frequency is included as a covariate, males had more positive attitudes to drink driving and perceived less disapproval of this behaviour from their significant others (viz., parents and peers). Also, males reported DUI behaviours to a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
greater extent, and had significantly higher AUDIT scores than females. On the other hand, the results of the covariance analysis (ANCOVA) suggest that females felt more able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations and were more prone to underestimating their own risk of adopting DUI behaviours. Table 2 shows the partial correlations found between variables by gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency (km per year).
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
Perceived disapproval from peers and parents was positively correlated in males and in females. Both variables were additionally correlated positively with perceived self-efficacy in avoiding drinking-and-driving situations in both males and females. On the other hand, subjective norms were negatively correlated with AUDIT scores and drink driving. In addition, the subscale peers’ norms was correlated with self-efficacy (positively in males and negatively in females). Therefore, perceived disapproval of DUI behaviours from significant others is associated with an increased perception of drivers’ control and driving self-efficacy.
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI behaviours was negatively correlated with AUDIT scores and DUI behaviours in both males and females (i.e., a low perception of self-control on the “drinking and driving” behaviour was associated with increased alcohol consumption and with an also increased self-reported frequency of DUI behaviours). Driving self-efficacy was negatively correlated with driving and riding optimism bias, but
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
only in females. The high driving self-efficacy scores of females were related to an underestimated perception of the risk associated with drink driving or riding with a drunk driver and their potential consequences (e.g., having an accident, being fined, losing licence points, dying or being injured, being arrested by the police). Finally, AUDIT scores were significantly correlated, in a positive manner, with the overall score of DUI behaviours in both genders (see Table 2). This means that high AUDIT scores are associated with increased scores for DUI behaviours. We used hierarchical multiple regression to confirm the significance of the variables of the theory of planned behaviour and biases in the prediction of drink driving (Table 3).
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
The finding that self-reported frequency of DUI behaviours was influenced by driving frequency (F = 3.24, p < .01) led us to include this variable in block 1 in order to control its effect. This block was expanded with AUDIT scores in order to consider the potential effect of alcohol consumption. The variables of the theory of planned behaviour (viz., DUI attitudes,
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT subjective norms and perceived behavioural control) were included in block 2 and those relating to cognitive bias (viz., optimistic bias) in block 3. Also, the significant differences between males and females warranted separate analysis of the results for each gender (see Table 3). The two regression models used accounted for a substantial fraction of DUI behaviours in
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
males (Corrected R2 = .54) and females (Corrected R2 = .50). Driving frequency (block 1) was no significant predictor in either gender. As can be seen from Table 3, AUDIT scores accounted for 31% and 17% of the variance in DUI behaviours in males and females, respectively. Process variables, which were included in block 2, explained 22% and 32% of the variance in the results for males and females, respectively. Drink driving attitudes and selfefficacy in avoiding DUI behaviours contributed significantly to the predictive ability of the model in both males and females. Perceived disapproval from peers and perceived driving selfefficacy were also good predictors of DUI behaviours in males and females, respectively. Optimistic bias (block 3) increased the fraction of explained variance in DUI behaviours in females only; the increase was small but significant (1%, Table 3).
DISCUSSION Overall, our results reveal substantial differences in driving behaviours between genders and provide further evidence of the validity of the TPB. Subjective peer norms and perceived behavioural control were found to be significant predictors of drink driving with provision for driving frequency and drinking. Contrary to our predictions, however, optimism bias was a minor significant predictor of DUI behaviours in females only.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In our study, females feel more self-efficacious to avoid drinking-and-driving situations and adopt self-regulatory behaviours (Gwyther and Holland 2012). On the other hand, males were heavier alcohol users than females; also, they performed DUI behaviours more often. These results, which are consistently apparent from official files of driving offenses, have also been found in research based on self-reported information (Begg et al. 2003; Ferreira et al. 2009;
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Olivera et al. 2002; Ryb et al. 2006) and cannot be exclusively ascribed to an increased driving frequency in males; rather, the increased susceptibility of males to violating DUI norms must be influenced by additional variables (Åberg and Rimmö 1998; Lonczak et al. 2007; Mesken et al. 2002). Such variables may be beliefs and social pressure. Our results indicate that males are more prone to drink driving and to perceive less disapproval of this behaviour by their significant others (parents and peers). The less negative perception of violating traffic norms typical of males has emerged in a number of studies (Jewell et al. 2004; McCarthy et al. 2006) and been associated to a decreased motivation to abide by speed limits and traffic norms (Whissell and Bigelow 2003; Yagil 1998). The effect is increased by their assumptions regarding the degree of disapproval of these behaviours (i.e., descriptive norms) by their significant others and their perception of their parents’ and peers’ opinions regarding the suitability of performing risky behaviours (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2009). As a result, males —particularly young men— tend to perceive greater approval of breaking traffic norms by their others (Horvath et al. 2012; Parker et al. 1992) and to believe that the people whose opinions they appreciate would approve of their speeding or drink driving (Cestac et al. 2011). An identical conclusion was previously drawn by Pimentão (2008) from a study on youths 21–22 years of age.
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Consistent with previous findings (Parker et al. 1992), parents are seemingly much less influential than peers in this respect. This is what one would expect from 18–30 year olds, most of whom are presumably in college or living on their own. This does not mean that parents were not references for our youths, but rather that their parents may have been more influential at other stages of the life cycle. Based on the theory of social learning, Gulliver and Begg (2004)
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
showed the significance of inappropriate behavioral models at an early age and how the persistence of a specific model leads to standardization of the associated behavior; thus, the experience of riding with drunk-driving adults is associated to riding with drunk-driving peers and increases the likelihood of youths accepting that DUI behavior and eventually adopting it themselves. Our results also reveal a close relationship of rational and cognitive variables with drink driving, and account for a substantial fraction of the variance in this variable. Peers’ subjective norms, low self-efficacy in avoiding drink driving and attitudes to DUI behaviours are the greatest specific contributors to the variable. As noted earlier, a low self-efficacy in avoiding drink driving is one of the best predictors of DUI behaviours. In other words, the perceived difficulty of using strategies to avoid drink driving (e.g., avoiding drinking alcohol, leaving the car and returning home by other means) is a good predictor of DUI behaviours. These results are consistent with those of Liourta and van Empelen (2008) for a sample of 361 Greek students and highlight the importance of encouraging the development of alternative skills and behaviours in drivers who are clearly committed to refraining from DUI behaviours but find it rather difficult to avoid them. Also, perceived peers’ disapproval of DUI behaviours plays a more prominent role than do DUI attitudes in drink driving in males. This result contradicts those of Yagil (2001)
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for Israeli soldiers and Marcil et al. (2001) for Canadian male undergraduates —their attitudes had an increased predictive value— but it is in line with those of Parker et al. (1992) for the intention of adopting various risky driving behaviours. Underestimation of the risks of drink driving and a biased perception of the risk of riding with a drunk driver were also relatively weak predictors of DUI behaviours, but only in females.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Our results additionally suggest the presence of significant relationships between biases, and also with driving efficacy in females (see Table 2). Possibly, women exhibiting this bias tend to minimize the consequences on themselves on some risky behaviours, especially if they feel capable of controlling them (i.e., if they believe their driving skills will allow them to react properly and continue to drive while drunk) (De Craen et al. 2011). This increased bias in situations that are perceived as more easily controlled has also been used by other authors to explain the scarcely deterrent effect of messages warning regarding the risks of some traffic norm violations (Klein and Helweg-Larsen, 2002; Moen and Rundmo, 2005). These results can have implications with a view to developing effective prevention and intervention programmes. In this respect, the substantial influence of subjective social norms on DUI behaviours suggests the need to intervene in normative pressures to prevent drunk driving —particularly in males. Male youths are more prone to adopting risky behaviours, having a more positive perception of such behaviours (e.g., focusing on the potential benefits rather than on the risks) and making riskier decisions (e.g., choosing riskier courses of action) when acting in group (Gardner and Steinberg 2005). For this reason, it may be useful to act on group norms or on young people’s perception of the norms. Previous studies shown that youths tend to perceive a higher than actual prevalence of DUI behaviours in their environment (Linkenbach and Perkins
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2003; Kenney et al. 2013), and also that changing that perception via social norms and media marketing campaigns can substantially reduce the prevalence of DUI behaviours (Perkins et al. 2010). Also, given the significance of self-efficacy to drink driving, it might be useful to enhance perceived control in drivers and to train them in the use of self-regulatory and planning
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
strategies, which are directly related to cognitive development of plans of action and the control mechanisms that facilitate perseverance and constancy in a given behaviour (Liourta and van Empelen 2008; Elliott et al. 2003). In this respect, Bandura (1986) himself outlined three ways in which perceptions of control over a given behaviour (i.e., self-efficacy) can be enhanced, namely: (a) via personal experiences leading to the pursuance and fulfilment of goals (e.g., by avoiding situations where the drinking–driving couple is the sole choice); (b) by seeing others who choose not to drink if they have to drive (e.g., by modelling celebrities who clearly state that they will not drink and drive); and (c) via standard persuasion techniques. These strategies were successfully used by Elliott and Armitage (2009) on a group of 300 drivers from the southeast of the United Kingdom in order to promote compliance with speed limits; they found significantly increased self-control beliefs in the drivers by effect of the intervention. Moreover, interventions should focus on having young people assess their own vulnerability in a more realistic manner and recognize the dangers of drink driving. Such is the purpose of the training courses proposed by Perrissol et al. (2011) and of some experimental manipulations examined by White et al. (2011) in young drivers performing simulation tasks. Because this information by itself cannot ensure effective promotion and maintenance of changes in both behaviours and beliefs (Planes 1993), additional measures aimed at training
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT young drivers in the specific skills required to develop efficacious preventive attitudes (e.g., assertiveness) should be adopted. The ultimate aim should be to have young people commit themselves to preventive driving behaviours and rejecting risky behaviours. According to Harré et al. (2005), crash-risk optimism bias is more effectively mitigated by advertisements demonstrating cautious driving choices (e.g, showing one or more people drinking and then
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
avoiding driving) than by those illustrating dangerous driving leading to a crash. For this reason, it is crucial to encourage youths to plan their alternatives to drink driving beforehand. Under the motto “don’t drive to drinking locations”, night transport networks are striving to help young people not only control how much they drink, but also their very drinking behaviour (McKnight et al. 1995). Most drunk drivers had initially intended not to drink; however, group pressure and the effects of alcohol on their cognitive abilities led them to change their minds. Alternative transport can thus help prevent drunk participants from driving. A similar intent underlies Preventing Alcohol Related Conviction (PARC), an intervention programme aimed at young drivers fined for drink driving in Florida (Rider et al. 2006). The programme used educational sessions and group interaction to have youths become aware of the difficulty of controlling what one drinks and invite them to leave the car at home when they go out —the figure of the “designated driver” was deemed a potential risk for youths. Participants in PARC self-reported substantial reductions in their recidivism rates one and two years after taking part in the programme (Rider et al. 2007). Despite the significance of the ensuing conclusions, the results of this survey are subject to some limitations related to the cross-sectional structure of the data, which precludes causal inferences. Also, it is subject to methodological limitations deriving from the potential sampling
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT bias in selecting the participants; thus, our sample may have differed from the general young population in some respects. A longitudinal study on a larger, more representative sample of the Spanish young population might therefore confirm or refute the present results. To our minds, it would be interesting to improve the scales in terms of size in the future. Thus, the perceived driving self-efficacy scale comprises only 2 items when a minimum of 3 is
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
believed to be required for a scale exploring a single dominion or factor (Streiner 1994; Oviedo and Campo-Arias 2005). There may also have been some bias in assessing drivers’ perception of risks. The presence of optimistically biased estimates of risk was exposed by comparative risk judgments. Participants rated their likelihood of experiencing some event on an anchored single scale. Optimistic bias was operationalized as a mean response below the scale midpoint —indicating that one’s own likelihood of experiencing the event is less than the average person’s likelihood— , but respondents could be accurately assessing their risk. Also, some participants may have misinterpreted the question regarding the likelihood of having a negative consequence after drinking relative to the risk of driving sober. For example, “having a few alcoholic drinks” is not necessarily the same as being “drunk.”
In sum, this paper examines the role of TPB theoretical framework in explaining driving behaviour in Spanish young adults. Data were collected in an individual manner by incidental sampling via a questionnaire. Our results contribute new empirical evidence for a certain ability to predict DUI behaviours from subjective peer norms and self-efficacy; also, they point to a limited usefulness of an additional variable examined here: optimism bias. In addition, the results
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT obtained with provision for the effect of driving frequency and alcohol consumption reveal differences in driving behaviours between genders. Thus, males were more prone to drink driving, perceived less disapproval by their parents and peers, and felt less able to avoid drinking-and-driving situations. Also, they self-reported more frequent DUI behaviors and alcohol consumption. Identifying the specific factors potentially contributing to driving
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
performance may be useful with a view to informing campaigns aimed at preventing DUI behaviours in young drivers (e.g., modifying normative beliefs, enhancing perceptions of control over the behaviour —self-efficacy—, and fostering alternatives to driving to drinking locations). Although avoiding “driving under the influence” is an ambitious goal, continued research may be helpful to shape public policy surrounding these issues and lead to a reduction in this hazardous behaviour. This will require overcoming some methodological constraints (e.g., the design of the study, sample, questionnaires and scales) in order to ensure accuracy and reliability in the results.
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT REFERENCES Åberg L, Rimmö P. Dimensions of aberrant driver behaviour. Ergonomics. 1998;41:39–56. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1991;50: 179–211. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice–Hall; 1980.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Anderson P., Baumberg B. Alcohol in Europe. London, Institute of Alcohol Studies; 2006. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Cognitive Social Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice–Hall; 1986. Bandura A. Pensamiento y acción. Fundamentos sociales. Barcelona: Martínez Roca; 1987. Begg DJ., Langley JD., Stephenson S. Identifying factors that predict persistent driving after drinking, unsafe driving after drinking, and driving after using cannabis among young adults. Accident Anal Prev. 2003;35:669–675. Cadaveira F. Alcohol y cerebro adolescente. Adicciones. 2009;21 9–14. Calafat A, Adrover D, Juan M., Blay NT. Relación del consumo de alcohol y drogas de los jóvenes españoles con la siniestralidad vial durante la vida recreativa nocturna en tres comunidades autónomas en 2007. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2008;82:323–331. Cestac J, Paran F, Delhomme P. Young drivers’ sensation seeking, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control and their roles in predicting speeding intention: How risktaking motivations evolve with gender and driving experience. Safety Sci. 2011;49:424– 432. Concha D, Bilbao MA, Gallardo I, Páez D, Fresno A. Sesgos cognitivos y su relación con el bienestar subjetivo. Salud & Sociedad. 2012;3:115–129.
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT De Craen S, Twisk DAM, Hagenzieker MP, Elffers H, Brookhuis KA. Do young novice drivers overestimate their driving skills more than experienced drivers? Different methods lead to different conclusions. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:1660–1665. Dejoy DM. The optimism bias and traffic accident risk perception. Accident Anal Prev. 1989;21:333–340.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Dillard AJ, Midboe AM, Klein WMP. The dark side of optimism: Unrealistic optimism about problems with alcohol predicts subsequent negative event experiences. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2009;35:1540–1550. Dirección General de Tráfico. Las principales cifras de la siniestralidad vial. España 2011. Madrid: Dirección General de Tráfico; 2012. Dobson A, Brown W, Ball J, Powers J, McFadden M. Women drivers’ behaviour, sociodemographic characteristics and accidents. Accident Anal Prev. 1999;31:525–535. Elliott MA, Armitage CJ. Promoting drivers’ compliance with speed limits: Testing an intervention based on the theory of planned behaviour. Brit J Psychol, 2009;100:111– 132. Elliott MA, Armitage CJ, Baughan CJ. Drivers compliance with speed limits: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88: 964–972. European Road Safety Observatory. Alcohol. 2006. Available at: http://www.erso.eu. Accessed January 25, 2007. Evans JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:255–278. Ferreira AI, Martínez LF, Guisande A. Risky behavior, personality traits and road accidents
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT among university students. Eur J Edu Psycho. 2009;2:79–98. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press; 2009. Gardner M, Steinberg L. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Dev Psychol.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
2005;41:625–635. Gibbons FX, Houlihan AE, Gerrard M. Reason and reaction: The utility of a dual-focus, dualprocessing perspective on promotion and prevention of adolescent health risk behaviour. Brit J Health Psych. 209;14:231–248. Gras ME. Efecto de las pérdidas y ganancias recientes en el riesgo asumido por los automovilistas. Psicothema. 1994;6:123–137. Gras ME, Planes M, Font-Mayolas S, Cunill M. Los comportamientos de riesgo en la conducción de vehículos: La perspectiva psicológica. In: Fundación RACC Automóvil Club, ed. Jóvenes y conducción: un derecho y una responsabilidad. Comisión de expertos para el estudio de la problemática de los jóvenes y la seguridad vial. Informe de ponencias, enero de 2007. Barcelona: Fundación RACC Automóvil Club; 2007:86–96. Greening L, Chandler CC. Why it can’t happen to me: The base rate matters, but overestimating skill leads to underestimating risk. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27:760–780. Greening L, Stoppelbein L. Young drivers’ health attitudes and intentions to drink and drive. J Adolescent Health. 2000;27:94–101. Gulliver P, Begg D. Influences during adolescence on perceptions and behaviour related to alcohol use and unsafe driving as young adults. Accident Anal Prev. 2004;36:773–781.
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Gwyther H, Holland C. The effect of age, gender and attitudes on self-regulation in driving. Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:19–28. Harré N, Foster S, O’Neill, M. Self-enhancement, crash-risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. Brit J Psychpl. 2005;96:215–230. Helwerg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA. Do moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
risk estimates? A review of the literature. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5:74–95. Horvath C, Lewis IM, Watson BC. The beliefs which motivate young male and female drivers to speed: a comparison of low and high intenders. Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:334–341. Jewell J, Hupp S, Luttrell G. The effectiveness of fatal vision goggles: Disentangling experiential versus onlooker effects. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 2004;48:63–84. Jewell, J, Hupp, S, Segrist, D. Assessing DUI risk: Examination of the Behaviors & Attitudes Drinking & Driving Scale (BADDS). Addict Behav. 2008;33:853–865. Kenney SR, LaBrie JW, Lac A. Injunctive peer misperceptions and the mediation of selfapproval on risk for driving after drinking among college students. J Health Commun. 2013;18:459–477. Klein CTF, Helweg-Larsen M. Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Health. 2002;17:437–446. Kulick D, Rosenberg H. Assessment of university students' coping strategies and reasons for driving in high-risk drinking-driving situations. Accident Anal Prev. 2000;32;85–94. Lawton R, Parker D, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG. The role of affect in predicting social behaviors: The case of read traffic violations. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27:1258–1276.
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Linkenbach J W, Perkins HW. Misperceptions of peer alcohol norms in a statewide survey of young adults. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA; 2003. Liourta E, van Empelen P. The importance of self-regulatory and goal-conflicting processes in the avoidance of drunk driving among Greek young drivers. Accident Anal Prev. 2008;40;1191–1199.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Lonczak HS, Neighbors C, Donovan DM. Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Anal Prev. 2007;39;536–545. Marcil I, Bergeron J., Audet T. Motivational factors underlying the intention to drink and drive in young male drivers. J Safety Res. 2001;32;636–376. Matthews ML, Moran AR. Age differences in male drivers’ perception of accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability. Accident Anal Prev. Special Issue: Youth and Traffic Accident Risk. 1986;18:299–313. McCarthy DM, Pedersen SL. Reciprocal associations between drinking-and-driving behavior and cognitions in adolescents. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70:536–542. McCarthy DM, Pedersen SL, Thompsen DM, Leuty ME. Development of a measure of drinking and driving expectancies for youth. Psychol Assessment. 2006;18:155–164. McKnight AJ, Lange JE, McKnight AS. Why people drink and drive: The basis of drinking-anddriving decisions. In: Kloeden CN, McLean E, Eds. Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety. Vol. 1. Adelaide, Australia, NHMRC, University of Adelaide; 1995:143–147. Mesken J, Lajunen T, Summala H. Interpersonal violations, speeding violations and their relation to accident involvement in Finland. Ergonomics. 2002;45;469–483. Moen BE, Rundmo T. Predictors of unrealistic optimism: a study of Norwegian risk takers. J
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Risk Res. 2005;8:363–382. Nemme HE, White KM. Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people’s texting intentions and behavior. Accident Anal Prev. 2010;42:1257–1265. Newman S, Watson B, Murray W. Factors predicting intentions to speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2004;7:287–300.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
Olivera C, Planes M, Cunill M, Gras ME. Efectos del alcohol y conducción de vehículos: Creencias y conductas de los jóvenes. Revista Española de Drogodependencias. 2002;27:66–80. Oviedo HC, Campo-Arias A. Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Rev Col Psiqui, 2005,34:572–580. Parker D, Manstead AS, Stradling SG, Reason JT. Determinants of intention to commit driving violations. Accident Anal Prev. 1992;24:117–131. Perkins HW, Linkenbach JW, Lewis MA, Neighbors C. Effectiveness of social norms media marketing in reducing drinking and driving: A statewide campaign. Addict Behav. 2010;35:866–874. Perrissol S, Smeding A, Laumond F, Le Floch V. Effect of a road safety training program on drivers’ comparative optimism. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:478–482. Pimentão C. Análise do comportamento de risco ao volante de jovens condutores com base na teoria do comportamento planeado de Ajzen. Revista da Facultade de Ciências Humanas e Sociais. 2008;5:202–217. Planes M. Percepción del riesgo personal de infección con el VIH en estudiantes universitarios: Implicaciones respecto a la adopción de comportamientos preventivos. Análisis y
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Modificación de Conducta. 1993;19:845–858. Parker D, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG, Reason JT, Baxter JS. Intention to commit driving violations: An application of the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Psychol. 1992;77:94–101. Rider R, Kelley-Baker T, Voas RB., Murphy B, McKnight AJ, Levings, C. The impact of a
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
novel educational curriculum for first-time DUI offenders on intermediate outcomes relevant to DUI recidivism. Accident Anal Prev. 2006;38:482–489. Rider R, Voas RB, Kelly-Baker T, Grosz M, Murphy B. Preventing alcohol-related convictions: The effect of a novel curriculum for first-time offenders on DUI recidivism. Traffic Inj Prev. 2007;8:147–152. Rubio G, Bermejo J, Caballero MC, Santo-Domingo J. Validación de la prueba para la identificación de trastornos por uso de alcohol (AUDIT) en atención primaria. Revista Clínica Española. 1998;198:11–14. Ryb GE, Dischinger PC, Kufera JA, Read KM. Risk perception and impulsivity: Association with risky behaviors and substance abuse disorders. Accident Anal Prev. 2006;38:567– 573. Snow RW, Wells-Parker E. Relationships between drinking problems and drinking locations among convicted drinking drivers. Amer J Drug Alc Abuse. 2001;27:531–542. Streiner DL. Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Can J Psychiatry, 1994;39:135–140. Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:806– 820.
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Weinstein ND. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility of health problems. J Behav Med. 1982; 5: 441–460. Weinstein ND. Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychol. 1984;3:431–457. Weinstein ND, Klein WM. Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. J Soc Clin Psychol.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1984;15:1–8. Whissel RW, Bigelow BJ. The Speeding Attitude Scale and the role of sensation seeking in profiling young drivers at risk. Risk Analysis. 2003;23:811–820. White MJ, Cunningham LC, Titchener K. Young drivers’ optimism bias for accident risk and driving skill: Accountability and insight experience manipulations. Accident Anal Prev. 2011;43:1309–1315. Wickens CM, Mann RE, Stoduto G, Butters JE, Ialomiteanu A, Smart RG. Does gender moderate the relationship between driver aggression and its risk factors? Accident Anal Prev. 2012;45:10–18. Yagil D. Gender and age-related differences in attitudes towards traffic laws and traffic violations. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 1998;1:123–135.
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Mean scores as adjusted for driving frequency and gender differences. Total
Females
.97 (.55)
Males Mean (SD) 1.17 (.57)
.84 (.50)
20.53***
0-4 0-4
2.97 (.93) 3.66 (.54)
2.61 (1.01) 3.48 (.69)
3.21 (.79) 3.78 (.36)
21.47*** 15.48***
Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI Driving self-efficacy
0-4 0-4
3.11 (.65) 2.41 (.72)
2.85 (.70) 2.49 (.70)
3.29 (.56) 2.36 (.73)
23.45*** n.s.
Driving optimist bias Riding optimist bias
0-4 0-4
–.28 (1.62) –.18 (1.32)
–.02 (1.57) –.07 (1.25)
–.45 (1.63) –.25 (1.36)
5.44* n.s.
AUDIT DUI behaviours
0-40 0-4
6.71 (4.92) .56 (.67)
8.09 (5.29) .79 (.79)
5.81 (4.47) .42 (.53)
13.72*** 14.63***
Range 0-4
Disapproval by peers Disapproval by parents Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
DUI attitudes
F
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, n.s. = not significant
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Partial correlations by gender with provision for the effect of driving frequency.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1
1. DUI attitudes 2. Disapproval by peers 3. Disapproval by parents 4. DUI self-efficacy 5. Driving self-efficacy 6. Driving bias 7. Riding bias 8. AUDIT 9. DUI behaviours
2 3 4 –.49*** –.27*** –.61*** –.25* .28*** .47*** –.37*** .31** .32*** –.55*** .32*** .52*** –.11 .20* .13 .14 –.13 .01 .11 –.03 –.09 .02 .20 .06 .35*** –.26** –.06 –.48*** .47*** –.51*** –.30** –.60***
5 .09 –.17* –.12 .01 –.16 –.06 .06 –.17
6 –.05 .12 .12 .05 –.17* .81*** .07 .11
7 – .02 .15 – –.15* .82*** .06 .02
8 9 .31*** .50*** –.19* –.35*** –.15 –.16 –.36*** –.65*** –.04 .16* –.05 –.02 –.01 –.04 .41*** .55***
Correlations in females are shown above the diagonal and correlations in males below it * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Figures of merit of the hierarchical regression analysis used to predict drink driving by gender. N = 110 / 164 Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 02:31 29 August 2014
1
R2(Corrected R2) ♂ ♀ .32 (31) .18 (.17)
β 1st step ♂ ♀ .19* .54***
Driving frequency (km/yr) AUDIT
.13 .41***
β 2nd step ♂ ♀
β 3rd step ♂ ♀
.03 .29***
.10 .20**
.05 .28**
.11 .21***
.13 –.30*** .01 –.29** –.08
.12 –.01 .09 –.54*** .18**
.17* –.31*** .01 –.26* –.05
.11 –.03 .10 –.54*** .18**
–.21 –.14
–.23* –.22*
.57 (.53) .51 (.49)
2 DUI attitudes Disapproval by peers Disapproval by parents Self-efficacy in avoiding DUI Driving self-efficacy
.58 (.54) .53 (.50)
3 Driving bias Riding bias ♂ males, ♀ females * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
