Perceptual deterrence versus current behaviours : a study into factors influencing drug driving in Queensland

A range of interventions are being implemented in Australia to apprehend and deter drug driving behaviour, in particular the recent implementation of random roadside drug testing procedures in Queensland. Given this countermeasure has a strong deterrence foundation, it is of interest to determine whether deterrence-based perceptual factors are influencing this offending behaviour or whether self-reported drug driving is heavily dependent upon illicit substance consumption levels and past offending behaviour. This study involves a sample of Queensland motorists (N = 898) who completed a self-report questionnaire that collected a range of information, including drug driving and drug consumption practices, conviction history, and perceptual deterrence factors. The aim was to examine what factors influence current drug driving behaviours. Analysis of the collected data revealed that approximately 20% of participants reported drug driving at least once in the last six months. Overall, there was considerable variability in the respondents' perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of legal sanctions, although the largest proportion of the sample did not consider such sanctions to be certain, severe or swift. In regard to predicting those who intended to drug drive again in the future, a combination of perceptual and behavioural-based factors were associated with such intentions. However, a closer examination revealed that behaviours, rather than perceptions, proved to have a greater level of influence on the current sample's future intentions to offend. This paper further outlines the major findings of the study and highlights that multi-modal interventions are most likely required to reduce the prevalence of drug driving on public roads.

A comparison of the psychological, social, and legal factors contributing to speeding and drink driving behaviour

Within Australia, motor vehicle injury is the leading cause of hospital admissions and fatalities. Road crash data reveals that among the factors contributing to crashes in Queensland, speed and alcohol continue to be overrepresented. While alcohol is the number one contributing factor to fatal crashes, speeding also contributes to a high proportion of crashes. Research indicates that risky driving is an important contributor to road crashes. However, it has been debated whether all risky driving behaviours are similar enough to be explained by the same combination of factors. Further, road safety authorities have traditionally relied upon deterrence based countermeasures to reduce the incidence of illegal driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving. However, more recent research has focussed on social factors to explain illegal driving behaviours. The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the psychological, legal, and social factors contributing to two illegal driving behaviours: exceeding the posted speed limit and driving when over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for the drivers licence type. Complementary theoretical perspectives were chosen to comprehensively examine these two behaviours including Akers’ social learning theory, Stafford and Warr’s expanded deterrence theory, and personality perspectives encompassing alcohol misuse, sensation seeking, and Type-A behaviour pattern. The program of research consisted of two phases: a preliminary pilot study, and the main quantitative phase. The preliminary pilot study was undertaken to inform the development of the quantitative study and to ensure the clarity of the theoretical constructs operationalised in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Queensland drivers recruited from Queensland Transport Licensing Centres and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). These interviews demonstrated that the majority of participants had engaged in at least one of the behaviours, or knew of someone who had. It was also found among these drivers that the social environment in which both behaviours operated, including family and friends, and the social rewards and punishments associated with the behaviours, are important in their decision making. The main quantitative phase of the research involved a cross-sectional survey of 547 Queensland licensed drivers. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between speeding and drink driving and whether there were any similarities or differences in the factors that contribute to a driver’s decision to engage in one or the other. A comparison of the participants self-reported speeding and self-reported drink driving behaviour demonstrated that there was a weak positive association between these two behaviours. Further, participants reported engaging in more frequent speeding at both low (i.e., up to 10 kilometres per hour) and high (i.e., 10 kilometres per hour or more) levels, than engaging in drink driving behaviour. It was noted that those who indicated they drove when they may be over the legal limit for their licence type, more frequently exceeded the posted speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or more than those who complied with the regulatory limits for drink driving. A series of regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that predict self-reported speeding, self-reported drink driving, and the preparedness to engage in both behaviours. In relation to self-reported speeding (n = 465), it was found that among the sociodemographic and person-related factors, younger drivers and those who score high on measures of sensation seeking were more likely to report exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition, among the legal and psychosocial factors it was observed that direct exposure to punishment (i.e., being detected by police), direct punishment avoidance (i.e., engaging in an illegal driving behaviour and not being detected by police), personal definitions (i.e., personal orientation or attitudes toward the behaviour), both the normative and behavioural dimensions of differential association (i.e., refers to both the orientation or attitude of their friends and family, as well as the behaviour of these individuals), and anticipated punishments were significant predictors of self-reported speeding. It was interesting to note that associating with significant others who held unfavourable definitions towards speeding (the normative dimension of differential association) and anticipating punishments from others were both significant predictors of a reduction in self-reported speeding. In relation to self-reported drink driving (n = 462), a logistic regression analysis indicated that there were a number of significant predictors which increased the likelihood of whether participants had driven in the last six months when they thought they may have been over the legal alcohol limit. These included: experiences of direct punishment avoidance; having a family member convicted of drink driving; higher levels of Type-A behaviour pattern; greater alcohol misuse (as measured by the AUDIT); and the normative dimension of differential association (i.e., associating with others who held favourable attitudes to drink driving). A final logistic regression analysis examined the predictors of whether the participants reported engaging in both drink driving and speeding versus those who reported engaging in only speeding (the more common of the two behaviours) (n = 465). It was found that experiences of punishment avoidance for speeding decreased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving; whereas in the case of drink driving, direct punishment avoidance increased the likelihood of engaging in both behaviours. It was also noted that holding favourable personal definitions toward speeding and drink driving, as well as higher levels of on Type-A behaviour pattern, and greater alcohol misuse significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving. This research has demonstrated that the compliance with the regulatory limits was much higher for drink driving than it was for speeding. It is acknowledged that while speed limits are a fundamental component of speed management practices in Australia, the countermeasures applied to both speeding and drink driving do not appear to elicit the same level of compliance across the driving population. Further, the findings suggest that while the principles underpinning the current regime of deterrence based countermeasures are sound, current enforcement practices are insufficient to force compliance among the driving population, particularly in the case of speeding. Future research should further examine the degree of overlap between speeding and drink driving behaviour and whether punishment avoidance experiences for a specific illegal driving behaviour serve to undermine the deterrent effect of countermeasures aimed at reducing the incidence of another illegal driving behaviour. Furthermore, future work should seek to understand the factors which predict engaging in speeding and drink driving behaviours at the same time. Speeding has shown itself to be a pervasive and persistent behaviour, hence it would be useful to examine why road safety authorities have been successful in convincing the majority of drivers of the dangers of drink driving, but not those associated with speeding. In conclusion, the challenge for road safety practitioners will be to convince drivers that speeding and drink driving are equally risky behaviours, with the ultimate goal to reduce the prevalence of both behaviours.

Big-five personality factors affecting driving behaviours

The factors affecting driving behaviors are various and interact simultaneously. Therefore, study of their correlations affecting on driving behaviors is of interest. This paper reports a questionnaire survey in China, focusing on the effect of Big-Five factors on speeding, drink driving, and distracted driving while Akers' social learning theory and Homel's deterrence theory were applied. The results showed that personalities had significant effect on speeding and drink driving; social factors had significant effect on speeding and distracted driving; deterrence had significant effect on speeding and drink driving; however, social learning theory did not contribute to drink driving; deterrence did not affect distracted driving. The results were discussed along with the limitation of this study.

Strategic entry deterrence : does it constitute a misuse of market power?

A challenge for regulators and the courts has been establishing the boundary between behaviour is exclusionary and should be condemned under s 46 of the then Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA), now s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA), and behaviour that is not exclusionary and might even be pro-competitive. This boundary can be especially difficult to draw in the case of entry deterring strategies. Section 46(1) prohibits corporations with a substantial degree of market power from taking advantage of that market power for one of the statutorily proscribed purposes which include preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market. Section 45(2) separately prohibits corporations from making and giving effect to contracts arrangements and understandings that have the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. The latest case in which the ACCC has failed to satisfy the s 46 criteria is the decision of Greenwood J in ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 909 (Cement Australia case). Final orders were published in a separate judgment, in ACCC v Cement Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 148 (28 February 2014). The case concerned an entry deterring strategy, namely the pre-emptive buying of input factors in an upstream market to protect an incumbent with substantial market power in a downstream market and to prevent new entry in the downstream market. Greenwood J found that while Cement Australia Pty Ltd, formerly known as Queensland Cement Ltd (QCL), had substantial market power, its conduct in entering into the pre-emptive contracts was not a contravention of s 46, because Cement Australia had not “taken advantage” of its market power. However, since Cement Australia’s purpose in entering into the pre-emptive contracts was anti-competitive, they were held to contravene s 45(2) of the TPA. The purpose of this Note is to consider only the reasons for judgment in the Cement Australia case in relation to the “taking advantage” element. The judgment was handed down on 10 September 2013. The final hearing date was 15 July 2011, so it was long-awaited. At 714 pages, it is carefully drafted.

Deterrence of drug driving : the impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques

Overarching Research Questions Are ACT motorists aware of roadside saliva based drug testing operations? What is the perceived deterrent impact of the operations? What factors are predictive of future intentions to drug drive? What are the differences between key subgroups

Young and unaffected by road policing strategies: Using deterrence theory to explain provisional drivers' (non)compliance

Newly licenced drivers are disproportionately represented in traffic injuries and crash statistics. Despite the implementation of countermeasures designed to improve safety, such as graduated driver licencing (GDL) schemes, many young drivers do not comply with road rules. This study used a reconceptualised deterrence theory framework to investigate young drivers’ perceptions of the enforcement of road rules in general and those more specifically related to GDL. A total of 236 drivers aged 17–24 completed a questionnaire assessing their perceptions of various deterrence mechanisms (personal and vicarious) and their compliance with both GDL-specific and general road rules. Hierarchical multiple regressions conducted to explore noncompliant behaviour revealed that, contrary to theoretical expectations, neither personal nor vicarious punishment experiences affected compliance in the expected direction. Instead, the most influential factors contributing to noncompliance were licence type (P2) and, counterintuitively, having previously been exposed to enforcement. Parental enforcement was also significant in the prediction of transient rule violations, but not fixed rule violations or overall noncompliance. Findings are discussed in light of several possibilities, including an increase in violations due to more time spent on the road, an ‘emboldening effect’ noted in prior studies and possible conceptual constraints regarding the deterrence variables examined in this study.

Left on the side of the road? A review of deterrence-based theoretical developments in road safety

Deterrence-based initiatives form a cornerstone of many road safety countermeasures. This approach is informed by Classical Deterrence Theory, which proposes that individuals will be deterred from committing offences if they fear the perceived consequences of the act, especially the perceived certainty, severity and swiftness of sanctions. While deterrence-based countermeasures have proven effective in reducing a range of illegal driving behaviours known to cause crashes such as speeding and drink driving, the exact level of exposure, and how the process works, remains unknown. As a result the current study involved a systematic review of the literature to identify theoretical advancements within deterrence theory that has informed evidence-based practice. Studies that reported on perceptual deterrence between 1950 and June 2015 were searched in electronic databases including PsychINFO and ScienceDirect, both within road safety and non-road safety fields. This review indicated that scientific efforts to understand deterrence processes for road safety were most intense during the 1970s and 1980s. This era produced competing theories that postulated both legal and non-legal factors can influence offending behaviours. Since this time, little theoretical progression has been made in the road safety arena, apart from Stafford and Warr's (1993) reconceptualisation of deterrence that illuminated the important issue of punishment avoidance. In contrast, the broader field of criminology has continued to advance theoretical knowledge by investigating a range of individual difference-based factors proposed to influence deterrent processes, including: moral inhibition, social bonding, self-control, tendencies to discount the future, etc. However, this scientific knowledge has not been directed towards identifying how to best utilise deterrence mechanisms to improve road safety. This paper will highlight the implications of this lack of progression and provide direction for future research.

Where do consumers draw the line? Factors informing perceptions and justifications of deviant consumer behaviour

Deviant consumer behaviour in the marketplace is an ongoing problem causing harm to the organisation, employees, and other consumers. To address this problem, this study explores consumer perceptions of right and wrong using the novel concept of a deviance threshold – the mental line in the sand dictating right and wrong. Using consumer-based interviews with a card-sort activity, findings supported and extended dimensions proposed to explain why some behaviours are perceived as more serious or unethical than others. Moreover, why specific neutralisation techniques are used and how they affect categorisations of behaviours within an individual’s deviance threshold is explained. This study offers alternative strategies tailored to challenging consumer justifications to curb deviance. Implications support abandoning the universal approach to deterrence.