A Structural Model of Drinking and Driving: Alcohol Consumption, Social Norms, and Moral Commitments*

Abstract

A structural model based upon data from a random sample of 1,000 U.S. drivers accounted for 56% of the variation in alcohol‐impaired driving, with total monthly alcohol consumption as the strongest predictor. Significant contributions of age, sex, peer group values, and preference for beer suggested the operation of socialization to group norms. There was a substantial contribution of personal moral commitment against drinking and driving. However, there was no significant inhibitory influence of legal knowledge and perceived arrest risk. These findings are consistent with Andenaes's view that general deterrence should be more broadly construed to include the moral component as well as the fear component of the law

What drives technology-based distractions? A structural equation model on social-psychological factors of technology-based driver distraction engagement

“…This kind of law enforcement may have lowered the discrepancy between intention and behaviour directly and by way of influencing social norms, factors that were not considered by Nelson et al (2009). In fact, social norms have not been well explored in driver distraction literature, despite their established effect on many unsafe driving behaviours, such as speeding (Connolly and Åberg, 1993;Haglund and Åberg, 2000) and drinking and driving (Åberg, 1993;Berger and Snortum, 1986;Perkins et al, 2010).…”

Effects of introducing an administrative .05% blood alcohol concentration limit on law enforcement patterns and alcohol-related collisions in Canada

“…Alcohol consumption alters driver's cognitive and motor functions, which increases the risk of serious traffic collision (Keall et al, 2004;Krüger and Vollrath, 2004). Individuals who drive under the influence of alcohol are more likely to drink beer (Berger and Snortum, 1986). Voas et al (2000) found a partial correlation between alcohol-related collisions and beer consumption in the United-States.…”

Age, gender and deterrability: Are younger male drivers more likely to discount the future?

“…A number of theorists have expanded the scope of the Classical Deterrence theory, due to a general recognition that penalties are not applied within a social vacuum (Berger and Snortum, 1986;Sherman, 1993). While a range of non-legal sanctions have been proposed (e.g., social and internal factors), arguably one of the most prominent expansions of deterrence theory was proposed by Stafford and Warr (1993) who proposed four prominent deterrent processes: (i) direct experience of punishment, (ii) direct experience of punishment avoidance, (iii) indirect experience of punishment, and (iv) indirect experience of punishment avoidance.…”