Judgment Processes Relevant to Drunk Driving¹

Abstract

The present study uses psychological theories of judgment and decision making in analyzing cognitions relevant to drunk driving decisions. Four groups of individuals were examined: (a) those having multiple convictions for drunk driving, (b) those having one conviction for drunk driving, (c) those never having been convicted of drunk driving but, who admit to having driven while intoxicated, and (d) those who drive, but claim to not have driven while intoxicated. Cognitions examined included perceived drunkenness relative to legally allowable blood alcohol levels for driving, perceived probabilities for being stopped and arrested and being involved in an automobile accident if driving drunk, and drunk driving tendencies. Perceived probabilities of being stopped and arrested and being involved in an accident were evaluated as a function of manipulations of 4 cues in a 2 X 2 X 4 X 3 factorial design (Distance to Destination X Weather and Road Conditions X Number of Drinks X Time to Consume). Perceived drunkenness was evaluated as a function of the manipulations of two cues in a 4 X 3 factorial design (Number of Drinks Consumed X Time to Consume). Results indicated the presence of several misperceptions and inappropriate response tendencies that potentially can be modified with educational efforts. These results are discussed in terms of the differential impact of previous arrest for DWI on different DW1-related judgments.

Examination of the mediational influences of peer norms, environmental influences, and parent communications on heavy drinking in athletes and nonathletes.

“…previous studies with adolescents, college students, and adults (Turrisi, 1999;Turrisi & Jaccard, 1991;Turrisi et al, 2001), have observed high test-retest reliability estimates (coefficients from r = .72 to r = − . 91), good convergence between items within a domain (e.g., drinking, peer norms), and nonsignificant correlations between the measures and indices of social desirability.…”

Examination of Judgments of Drunkenness, Binge Drinking, and Drunk‐Driving Tendencies in Teens With and Without a Family History of Alcohol Abuse

“…Teens also perceived themselves to be more drunk as the time period over which they consumed alcoholic beverages decreased (largest scale values). In contrast, Jaccard and Turrisi observed that when presented with the same informational cues, adults tended to use a more complex multiplicative process by which the influence of numbers of drinks changed depending on how long the individuals had been drinking (as signified by a two-way interaction between these variables) (Jaccard and Turrisi, 1987;Turrisi and Jaccard, 1991). These observed differences in the use of the cues between adults and teens are in all likelihood due to the differing level of experience the two groups have with respect to alcohol consumption.…”

“…For each situation described, subjects were asked to indicate on a separate 21-point rating scale (-10 to + 10) the extent to which they were under or over the legal limit for blood alcohol level for driving. The decision to use the values for the independent variables described above, and also to anchor judgments of drunkenness to legal limit for blood alcohol, was made for the following reasons: (1) to compare the results of the present study to that of previous research examining judgments of drunkenness in response to external cues in older samples, (Jaccard and Turrisi, 1987;Turrisi and Jaccard, 1991) and (2) all respondents were recently licensed drivers and had been exposed to information in the context of their school-based education curricula and driver training on the legal limit for blood alcohol for driving (e.g., blood alcohol charts). All individuals made the 36 judgments in each of the two sessions, yielding 72 judgments per respondent.…”

“…Comparing perceived judgments of drunkenness with actual BACs in an adult sample, Turrisi and Jaccard (1991) found that individuals with multiple convictions for drunk driving used integration rules that tended to result in greater numbers of judgmental (underestimation) errors relative to individuals having never been convicted of drunk driving or having been convicted only one time. Of psychological interest is the extent to which judgmental strategies used by teens result in accurate judgments of blood alcohol level.…”

An examination of perceived behavioral control: Internal and external influences on intention

“…Previous research indicates the social impact and importance of research on blood donation (e.g., Allen, Machleit, & Schultz-Kleine, 1992;Ferguson, 1997), sunscreen use (e.g., Hillhouse, Stair, & Adler, 1996;Leary & Jones, 1993;Turrisi, Hillhouse, & Gebert, 1998), drinking and driving (Stacy, Bentler, & Flay, 1994;Turrisi & Jaccard, 1991;Turrisi, Jaccard, & McDonnell, 1997), and fast-food consumption (e.g., Bagozzi et al, 2000;Brinberg & Durand, 1983). These four behaviors are contextually distinct in that they cover a broad range of substantively significant, socially marketed issues, and at the same time, offer a diverse spectrum of behaviors that have been used in past research examining perceived control within the TPB framework.…”