Female Aggression Versus Male Violence on the Roadway



RUNNING HEAD: EFFECTS OF FATAL VISION GOGGLES

The Effects of Fatal Vision Goggles on Drinking and Driving Intentions in College Students

Dwight A. Hennessy

Elizabeth Lanni-Manley

Nicole Maiorana

Department of Psychology

Buffalo State College, USA

Journal of Drug Education (in press)

Abstract

The present study was designed to examine the effectiveness of Fatal Vision Goggles in reducing intentions to drink and drive. Participants performed a field sobriety task and drove in a traffic simulator while wearing the goggles. A regression analysis was performed in order to predict changes in intentions to drink and drive, using typical drinking patterns, perceived likelihood of getting into a collision when drinking and driving, self efficacy, and driving independence as predictor variables. Results showed that drinking and driving intentions were reduced following the use of Fatal Vision Goggles among those that typically drink more during outings, among those that believe the likelihood of collisions when drinking and driving are greater, and among those less likely to drive to achieve independence and autonomy. These results indicate that Fatal Vision Goggles can be an effective tool in altering drinking and driving attitudes among drivers with specific attitudinal and personal characteristics.

The Effects of Fatal Vision Goggles on Drinking and Driving Intentions in College Students

Drinking and driving among young adults is a major concern within public and research communities. It has been estimated that, annually, more than 2 million young adults drive after consuming alcohol and 1,400 of those end in fatal accidents (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Winter, & Wechsler, 2003). According to the NHTSA Safety Facts for the year 2003, 19% of fatal DUI crashes in the United States involved driver’s aged 16-20, and 32% involved drivers aged 21-24 (NHTSA, 2003). Similarly, Canadian statistics for 2000 indicate that 39% of 16-19 year olds and 41% of 20-25 year olds killed in automobile collisions involved alcohol (Mayhew, Brown, & Simpson, 2002). This issue, coupled with the dilemma of excessive drinking on campuses (see Vicary & Karshin, 2002; Wechsler Lee, Kuo, Seibring, Nelson, & Lee, 2002) have contributed to the development of a number of programs with a focus on curbing drinking and driving among high school and college students.

One common approach to curbing youth drinking and driving has been a preventative process whereby young drivers are proactively “educated” about the dangers of drinking and driving before its potential onset. Perhaps the most recognized of these programs is DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) which has been in operation for more than 20 years. The program typically involves a uniformed police officer that teaches a series of one hour classes (e.g. originally once per week for 17 weeks, although timing varies in some programs). It covers topics such as drug use, negative outcomes of drug use, peer pressure, and role models. However, some have argued that DARE has been relatively ineffective in maintaining long term reductions in risky behaviors, such as drinking and driving (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; D’Amico & Fromme, 2002; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam, Milich, Zimmerman, Novak, Logan, Martin, Leukefeld, & Clayton, 1999; West & O’Neal, 2004). According to Ennett et al. (1994), one reason for its ineffectiveness may be the use of traditional lecture based teaching approaches rather than more interactive techniques.

Another popular prevention program is SAFE (Stay Alive From Education) which utilizes a more multifaceted approach where participants view graphic films/photographs of the consequences of drunk driving, engage in role playing of perpetrators and victims of drunk driving, and receive education on the physics/mechanics of collisions. Wilkins (2000) recently found that SAFE has some limited short term impact, but this evidence is preliminary, shows little evidence of enduring impact, and lacks any legitimate comparison control.

Victim Impact Panels (VIPs) were inaugurated by Mothers Against Drunk Diving in 1985 as an attempt to change participant emotions and attitudes about drinking and driving by confronting them with the human costs. Actual victims and families of victims tell detailed stories of how their lives have been changed by death or severe injury as result of drunk drivers. Badovinac (1994) showed a change in attitudes and behavior intentions toward drinking and driving among multiple offense recidivists. However, it is not yet known if VIPs actually prevent future DUI behavior in recidivists. Further, there have been no studies to investigate their impact on non-recidivists, so its use as a proactive tool is also uncertain.

Fatal Vision Goggles (FVG) is a relatively new prevention program that has begun to receive widespread use among high school and college communities. FVG are a set of goggles designed to simulate the visual and motor impairment associated with various ranges of intoxication, such as spatial disorientation and loss of equilibrium. Participants are asked to perform a series of motor and balance tasks while wearing the goggles as a demonstration of the potential effects and risks associated with being intoxicated. Anecdotally, FVG appear to provide users a surprising and impactful perspective on the dangers of drinking and driving (see Alaimo, 1999; Magic City Morning Star, 2005; Sandham, 2005). However, critics have argued that FVG programs may be futile because they are presented in a humorous manner in which participants see their friends, fellow classmates, and teachers stumbling, falling, and failing to accomplish simple motor tasks (see National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 2003). The end result may be that most do not take the goggles, the program, or the observed effects seriously. While humor can be an effective technique in increasing attention to a persuasive message, it can have a negative outcome if it masks the true intent or content of the message (see Scott, Klein, & Bryant,1990). Jewell, Hupp, and Luttrell (2004) have conducted the only evaluation of FVG to date and found that they have the potential to change attitudes about drinking and driving, but only when used first hand. They have argued that the potential benefits of the goggles may be wasted due to the fact that most participants simply watch a demonstration rather than experience their effects personally. However, personal experience is still no guarantee of success as all individuals will interpret the outcomes uniquely. Past experiences, personal attitudes, personality, and future expectations should influence the outcome of any persuasion technique. Hence, the purpose of the present study was to examine if such personal characteristics will alter the effectiveness of FVG in reducing drinking and driving attitudes.

Hypotheses

1. It was predicted that the number of drinks typically consumed in an outing would influence the effectiveness of FVG. Specifically, those that consume more alcohol during the average outing would show greater reduction in intentions to drink and drive following the use of FVG. Due to the fact that greater drinking could potentially lead to greater risk of intoxication, the risks of intoxication should be more pertinent to this group and, as a result, they should be impacted more by their experience from the goggles.

2. It was also expected that attitudes about the perceived likelihood of police detection and collision when drinking and driving would alter FVG effectiveness. Those who perceive a greater risk of getting caught by the police would show greater reduction in drinking and driving intentions following the use of FVG. Similarly, drinking and driving intentions would be lower among those that believe there is greater risk of collision when drinking and driving. While threat of punishment is not always effective in reducing negative behavior (see Lonero, Clinton, Wilde, Roach, McKnight, MacLean, Guastello, & Lamble, 1994), those that feel that the legal and personal risks associated with drinking and driving are real and probable should also be more sensitive to the personal potential for negative outcomes with drinking and driving.

3. It was predicted that self efficacy would also alter the effectiveness of FVG. Self efficacy represents a belief in the ability to accomplish tasks and meet demands of a give situation (Bandura, 1997). As a result, such individuals tend to persist at tasks longer and actually succeed more often as a result (Sanna & Pusecker, 1994). They should be more inclined to focus on and contemplate change in order to prevent the potential loss of personal control and ability through drinking and driving. Hence, high self efficacy participants were expected to show greater reduction in drinking and driving intentions following the use of FVG.

4. The impact of FVG would be altered by the tendency to gain a sense of identity from driving. All drivers drive for a purpose. For some, this motive is to express their persona (Stradling, Meadows, & Beatty, 2000). Driving is a way to demonstrate a sense of power and control to others. As a result, driving has immense personal meaning and relevance. Attempts to alter this freedom of personal driving expression may lead to resistance and opposition because it would represent a threat to their underlying motive for driving. As a result, it was predicted that high identity drivers would be impacted less by the use of FVG.

Method

Participants

Participants included 70 female and 38 male students from a potential participant pool of approximately 450 students at Buffalo State College. Participants received ½ per cent extra credit for participating. All were required to be at least 18 years of age, hold a valid license, and drive on a daily basis. The ages ranged from 18 – 33 years (M = 20.62, SD = 3.46), while driving experience ranged from 1 – 16 years (M = 4.00, SD = 3.21).

Measures

The Driver Autonomy Scale – Identity Subscale (Stradling et al., 2000) was designed to measure a personal sense of identity from driving an automobile. Those scoring high on this scale tend to enjoy driving because the vehicle provides a tool to exhibit a persona of control, confidence, and personal safety (Stradling et al., 2000). It consists of 10 items focused on reasons why people drive. Participants were asked to indicate how much they agree that each item describes their motives for driving, using a 1-6 scale where 1 represented strong disagreement and 6 represented strong agreement. Items include “Driving gives me the feeling of being in control” and “Driving gives me a feeling of power”. A driving identity score was calculated as the mean response to the 10 items. Higher scores represented greater driving identity.

The New General Self Efficacy Scale (NGSE) (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001) was designed to examine an individual’s optimistic beliefs in successfully dealing with difficult demands in life. Participants are asked to indicate how much they agree with eight statements which pertain to perceptions of success at general tasks, such as achievement of personal goals, completing difficult tasks, and obtaining important outcomes in life. A 1-8 scale was used in the present study, where 1 represented strong disagreement and 8 represented strong agreement. The NGSE is shorter, and has been found to contain similar reliability scores, compared to the original self-efficacy scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982) with α = .85 and α = .88 respectively (Chen et al., 2001). Also, the NGSE scale has also been shown to measure self-efficacy separately from self-esteem to a better degree than the original Self-Efficacy Scale. A self efficacy score was calculated as the mean response to the eight items. Higher scores represented greater general self efficacy.

Fatal Vision Goggles (Innocorp Ltd.) are a set of goggles designed to simulate visual and motor impairment at varying levels of alcohol intoxication. The intended outcome is to create a loss of equilibrium similar to that experienced under the influence of alcohol. The present study used the “moderate” daytime goggles which are intended to simulate the visual and motor impairment evident at intoxication levels from approximately 0.07 – 0.1 BAC. The daytime goggles were chosen because they are typically used by schools and organizations and the moderate range was chosen because it would encompass illegal BAC levels in Canada and the United States.

A Traffic Simulator was designed based on the Need for Speed-Porsche Unleashed video game engine. The program includes a first person view of the driving environment with a 3-dimensional visual field, speedometer, other traffic, and traffic signs. Unlike other simulated driving programs, this program has an option to disengage the “race” component and to be used with no “competition” with other drivers. The system also included an ACT LABS force back steering system, 3-dimensional sound, Toyota Celica driver seat, and standard gas/brake pedal within an enclosed cabin.

The field sobriety task was chosen from NHTSA’s Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (NHTSA, 2005). Of the three standardized tests, only the Walk and Turn tests was used because the Horizontal Nystagmus test measures involuntary eye movements and the One Leg Stand measures cognitive impairment, both of which are not impacted by the visual disruptions created by FVG. In contrast the walk and turn test is a purely visual and motor test that shows immediate disruption when using FVG. The procedure is to have participants walk 9 steps, heel to toe, along a straight line similar to those found roadside, spin, and return 9 steps.

Procedure

Participants initially completed a battery of questions which included demographics (e.g. age, gender), typical driving patterns (e.g. average daily driving time), typical drinking patterns (e.g. number of alcoholic drinks typically consumed during the typical “drinking” outing), self efficacy, driving identity, and pre-measure of drinking and driving intentions. The latter was measured by asking participants the likelihood that they would engage in a number of positive and negative driving behaviors (using a 0 – 5 Likert scale), including drive after they have consumed four or more drinks over a one hour period. Finally, they were asked to rate the likelihood that those who drink and drive will generally be detected by the police and will generally get into a collision.

Next, participants completed two sets of “treatment” tasks while wearing the fatal vision goggles: a set of field sobriety type tasks and a simulated driving task. The field sobriety task was demonstrated prior to participation and the criteria used by police as indicators of intoxication were explained (e.g. losing balance, inability to walk heel to toe, losing count, failing to walk along the line, swaying).

Four groups were randomly chosen based on the order of presentation of the tasks. In order to examine the effects of the field sobriety task alone, Group 1 completed the field sobriety task, then provided post-measures of drinking and driving intentions, then drove in the simulator. To examine the effects of the driving simulation alone, Group 2 drove in the simulator, then provided post-measures of drinking and driving intentions, then completed the field sobriety task. The purpose of including both sets of tasks for Group 1 and 2, despite the fact the second task was not relevant to their post-measure, was to ensure that no participants were denied any potential benefits of the full program based on random assignment. Groups 3 and 4 completed both sets of tasks prior to completing the post-measure of drinking and driving intentions. The difference between the groups was the order in which they performed the tasks (field sobriety then simulation and simulation then field sobriety, respectively). The purpose of these latter two groups was to investigate the combined influence of multiple tasks, while controlling for task order. For all groups, the post-measure of drinking and driving intentions was identical to the pre-measure but was embedded within a series of distracter items which asked their likelihood of engaging in a variety of behaviors in the future.

Results

Descriptive statistics showed that the mean likelihood of drinking and driving in the pre-test (M = 2.42, SD = 1.30) and post-test (M = 1.65, SD = 1.23) were both relatively low, given the bounds of the maximum likelihood of 5.0. A dependent samples t-Test indicated that the likelihood ratings were significantly lower following presentation of FVG (t = -4.85, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download