Newcomb M D, Rabow J, Hernandez A C, Monto M
Division of Counseling Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles 90089-0031, USA.
J Stud Alcohol. 1997 Mar;58(2):191-9. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1997.58.191.
This study examined personal characteristics and contextual factors among college students who had made an attempt to prevent someone from driving drunk. The study was guided by findings from prior research and the arousal/cost-benefit model of helping. Both passive and assertive interventions and their efficacy were considered.
Questionnaire data were obtained from 388 students: 206 (68%) had intervened in a DUI situation (63% women). Self-reports of the person (e.g., moral obligation), the situation (e.g., perceived danger) and the type (passive, assertive) and success of the interventions were gathered.
Of all interventions used 73% were successful; the median number of interventions used was three. Of the assertive interventions used in DUI situations 57% were successful compared to 47% of the passive interventions. Path analyses revealed that being older relative to the intervenee and greater sobriety of the intervenor predicted more interventions of both types. Personal commitment to intervention, amount of perceived danger and less alcohol consumption increased assertive interventions, whereas talking with someone about the potential DUI person increased the number of passive interventions. The success of both passive and assertive interventions were dependent upon the number of each of these interventions used. However, the more passive interventions were attempted, the less likely the success of an assertive intervention.
The current findings extend our understanding of the psychosocial factors associated with informal DUI intervention, particularly concerning the choice and success of passive versus assertive interventions. Several of these significant predictors support laboratory research findings on helping and the arousal/cost-benefit model, while others do not.
本研究调查了曾试图阻止他人酒后驾车的大学生的个人特征和背景因素。该研究以先前研究的结果以及帮助行为的唤醒/成本效益模型为指导。研究考虑了被动和主动干预措施及其效果。
从388名学生中获取问卷数据：206名（68%）学生曾干预过酒后驾车情况（63%为女性）。收集了关于干预者本人（如道德义务）、情境（如感知到的危险）以及干预类型（被动、主动）和成功情况的自我报告。
在所有使用的干预措施中，73%取得了成功；干预措施的中位数为三次。在酒后驾车情境中使用的主动干预措施，57%取得了成功，而被动干预措施的成功率为47%。路径分析表明，相对于被干预者年龄较大以及干预者更清醒，预测了两种类型的干预措施使用得更多。对干预的个人承诺、感知到的危险程度以及较少的酒精消费增加了主动干预措施的使用，而与他人谈论潜在的酒后驾车者则增加了被动干预措施的数量。被动和主动干预措施的成功都取决于每种干预措施的使用次数。然而，尝试的被动干预措施越多，主动干预措施成功的可能性就越小。
当前的研究结果扩展了我们对与非正式酒后驾车干预相关的社会心理因素的理解，特别是关于被动与主动干预措施的选择和成功情况。其中一些重要的预测因素支持了关于帮助行为的实验室研究结果以及唤醒/成本效益模型，而其他一些则不然。
