|
A Prospective
Study of Underage Drinking and Driving Behaviors
Principal Investigator:
Joel W. Grube, Ph.D.
Return
to Video Presentation
Underage drinking and driving (DUI)
and riding with a driver who has been drinking (RWDD) are major issues of concern
for public health advocates, parents, teachers, and other community members. In
1999, 29% of drivers younger than 21 years old who were killed in fatal crashes
in the United States had positive blood alcohol levels. In all, 3,561 drivers
in this age group died in alcohol related fatal crashes that year. Given these
statistics, it is important to understand which young people are most at risk
and why they become involved in drinking and driving or riding with drinking drivers.
It is only when we understand the individual, social, and other environmental
risk factors that underlie these behaviors that we can design effective preventive
interventions. Hypothetically,
DUI and RWDD are resultant of what four immediate factors? DUI
and RWDD are hypothesized to directly result from four immediate factors: (a)
DUI Expectancies or beliefs about the likelihood of specific personal consequences
of DUI behaviors such as arrest, (b) DUI Normative Beliefs or perceptions of the
extent to which significant others approve of and engage in DUI behaviors, (c)
DUI Control Beliefs, including the perceived availability of alternatives (for
example designated drivers), and (d) DUI Specific Risk Behaviors such as drinking
frequency and quantity, drinking in situations that put the individual at risk
for DUI (e.g., in cars, or at parties requiring transportation to, and from),
and risky driving (e.g., chronic speeding).
Tell
us about your recent study.
In a recent San Francisco Bay Area Study
about 61% of youth reported drinking and 73% reported driving during the 12 months
prior to survey. In addition, 16% of the sample reported being involved in DUI
in the past 12 months and 8% in the past 30 days. About 49% of the sample reported
RWDD in the past 12 months and 24% in the past 30 days.
Give us one
interesting finding on DUI based on the 12-month data.
Caucasian
Americans ranked the highest in the prevalence of DUI, followed by Latino, African,
and Asian Americans. 
Asian Americans appeared to be least likely to report DUI. However, the ethnic
differences were not statistically significant. What
about using DESIGNATED DRIVERS? Interestingly,
31% of the sample had been a designated driver and 48% of the sample had ridden
with a designated driver in the past 12 months. 47%
of the sample thought that a designated driver should not drink at all, but 32%
of the sample considered 1 drink, 14% considered 2 drinks, and another 6% considered
3 drinks or more to be acceptable for a designated driver to drink within an hour
of driving. 
Designated
drivers drank more often, drink more heavily, and got intoxicated more often than
did those who had never been a designated driver. More
designated drivers reported DUI than those who had never been a designated driver. What
are the implications of your study? The
lack of ethnic differences in underage DUI suggests that, although culturally
appropriate programs are desirable, targeting specific ethnic groups may not be
necessary. Drinking
at parties, restaurants, in cars, and in outdoor locations increases the risk
of DUI or RWDD. These locations and events should be targeted in DUI interventions
focusing on the enforcement, availability, and other environmental policies. Although
use of designated drivers is relatively high, young people have a poor understanding
of what a designated driver is. We should teach young people about the effects
of even low amounts of alcohol and the need for designated drivers to refrain
from drinking. Higher
outlet densities appear to be positively related to increased DUI. Reducing outlet
density and reducing availability of alcohol through other means (e.g., sales,
social sources) to young people may be one effective strategy for reducing underage
DUI. Generally
speaking, young people are aware of the laws regarding DUI and of the availability
of alternative transportation. Yet, these factors do not appear to be important
influences on DUI decisions. Educational programs focusing on these areas are
unlikely to be effective. Increased
enforcement of existing DUI laws may be an effective deterrent.
[Return to Top]
| 
