Hernandez A C, Rabow J
Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles 90024.
J Stud Alcohol. 1987 May;48(3):269-71. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1987.48.269.
The types and frequency of interventions used to prevent drunken driving across four different locations is examined. A drinking survey of 247 students provided 97 subjects who indicated that someone had attempted to prevent them from driving under the influence (DUI). Results suggest that the location of the drinking modestly influences the type of intervention, that the more assertive intervention has a higher success rate and that private or more intimate gatherings promote less assertive interventions. Given the failure of deterrence, further understanding of how, why, when and who does and does not intervene, and what, when and who is and is not successful are promising research directions. Most importantly, however, is the need to conceptualize drunken drivers and the reactions to their potential DUI. It is suggested that the social support-stress literature may be useful in that it provides us with a social psychology of both effective and ineffective crises management. Status and age characteristics are the sociological parameters that must be included if we are to clarify and improve our understanding and move toward an informed policy.
研究了在四个不同地点用于预防酒后驾车的干预措施的类型和频率。一项针对247名学生的饮酒调查提供了97名受试者，他们表示有人曾试图阻止他们在受影响的情况下驾车（酒后驾车）。结果表明，饮酒地点对干预类型有适度影响，更果断的干预成功率更高，私人或更亲密的聚会促使采取的干预措施不那么果断。鉴于威慑手段的失败，进一步了解如何、为何、何时以及谁进行和不进行干预，以及什么、何时以及谁成功和不成功，是很有前景的研究方向。然而，最重要的是需要对酒后驾车者及其对潜在酒后驾车行为的反应进行概念化。有人认为，社会支持-压力文献可能会有所帮助，因为它为我们提供了有效和无效危机管理的社会心理学。如果我们要澄清和改进理解并朝着明智的政策迈进，地位和年龄特征是必须纳入的社会学参数。
