Does getting away with it count? An application of stafford and warr’s reconceptualised model of deterrence to drink driving

Szogi, Elizabeth; Darvell, Millie; Freeman, James E.; Truelove, Verity; Palk, Gavan R.; Davey, Jeremy D.; Armstrong, Kerry

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.006

Cited by 41 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stafford and Warr (1993) state that their variables can be used in addition to classical deterrence measures in cross-sectional survey designs as they are accounting for an individual's past experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. This is supported by previous research that has utilized cross-sectional studies to examine the impact of Stafford and Warr’s (1993) variables on engagement in offending behavior (e.g., Freeman & Watson, 2009; Paternoster & Piquero, 1995; Piquero & Paternoster, 1998; Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002; Szogi et al, 2017).…”

Section: Deterrence Theorysupporting

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the impact of both legal and nonlegal factors on following a vehicle too closely utilizing three deterrence-based theories

Ochenasek

Truelove

Stefanidis

et al. 2021

Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a vehicle too closely (otherwise known as tailgating) is a high-risk behavior and major contributor to motor-vehicle collisions and injuries. Both legal and nonlegal countermeasures are currently in place in an attempt to prevent this behavior, yet there has been limited research that has examined the effectiveness of both legal and nonlegal factors on engagement in the behavior. Therefore, this research utilized a combination of the three most salient deterrence-based theories used in road safety to understand the impact of both legal and nonlegal sanctions on following a vehicle too closely. A survey was completed by 887 Queensland drivers aged 17–84 years ( Mage = 49 years; 55% males). Variables from Classical Deterrence Theory, the reconceptualized deterrence theory and the extended deterrence-based model (that includes perceived internal loss, physical loss, and social sanctions), as well as measures of following a vehicle too closely were used. The majority of the sample (98%) reported following a vehicle too closely at some point, with the average frequency ranging from rarely to sometimes. Significant predictors of more frequent unsafe following distances included: being male, younger in age, and avoiding punishment for the behavior. Meanwhile, significant predictors of less frequent unsafe following distances included knowing others who have been punished for the behavior, as well as fearing the physical and internal losses resulting from unsafe following distances. Notably, the severity of the punishment was also a significant deterrent, while the perceived certainty of being apprehended for the offence was low and did not impact engagement in behavior. These results have a number of important implications on how to maximize both legal and nonlegal countermeasures to further prevent following a vehicle too closely.

show abstract

Section: Deterrence Theorysupporting

confidence: 61%

“…Although deterrence measures have shown to correlate with road safety behaviors, a large amount of variance remains unexplained in previous studies (e.g., Kaviani et al, 2020; Szogi et al, 2017; Truelove et al, 2019). Thus, it should be recognized that factors beyond legal sanctions influence offending behavior.…”

Section: Deterrence Theorymentioning

confidence: 88%

Examining the impact of both legal and nonlegal factors on following a vehicle too closely utilizing three deterrence-based theories

Ochenasek

Truelove

Stefanidis

et al. 2021

Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The evidence for vicarious punishment avoidance, which is the observation and sharing of the punishment avoidance experiences of others (Piquero and Pogarsky, 2002), is more mixed. For instance, while Szogi et al (2017) identified that direct punishment avoidance was the strongest predictor of drink driving in a survey of Queensland drivers, they did not find an effect for vicarious punishment avoidance.…”

Section: Punishment Avoidancementioning

confidence: 94%

Young Drivers, Deterrence Theory, and Punishment Avoidance: A Qualitative Exploration

Bates

Anderson

2019

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Punishment avoidance occurs when a person commits an offence but is not punished for it. The aim of this article was to explore how young drivers experience punishment avoidance. New drivers aged between 17 and 25 years participated in 11 focus groups held in both metropolitan and regional areas in two Australian states: Queensland and Victoria. Thematic analysis identified that young drivers experience punishment avoidance in one of three ways. First, they can attempt to actively avoid punishment by engaging in deliberate actions to circumvent policing activities. Secondly, they can experience either direct or vicarious punishment avoidance of police enforcement. An example of this would be ‘talking their way out of a ticket’ after they had been caught by a police officer. Finally, their parents may help them avoid punishment by, for instance, paying the traffic fine on their child’s behalf. This article increases our understanding of how punishment avoidance occurs in practice.

show abstract

“…Previous research has indicated that punishment avoidance, either directly or vicariously, encourages individuals to continue to engage in the illegal behaviour (e.g. Armstrong, Watling, & Davey, 2018;Freeman, Kaye, Truelove, & Davey, 2017;Szogi et al, 2017;Watling, Palk, Freeman, & Davey, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2019

JACRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Does getting away with it count? An application of stafford and warr’s reconceptualised model of deterrence to drink driving

Cited by 41 publications

References 26 publications

Examining the impact of both legal and nonlegal factors on following a vehicle too closely utilizing three deterrence-based theories

Examining the impact of both legal and nonlegal factors on following a vehicle too closely utilizing three deterrence-based theories

Young Drivers, Deterrence Theory, and Punishment Avoidance: A Qualitative Exploration

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About