Riding along with a drunk driver: a social norms campaign in Antwerp studentsAn influence on driving under influence?

Bart VriesackerHeidi StoopGuido Van Hal

Introduction• 2010 : 45,927 traffic accidents • An average day in Belgium: 125 traffic accidents 109 slightly injured persons 14 severly injured persons 2 deaths• Adolescents and young adults: - traffic accidents are the most important cause of death - More than half of the total group of fatal accidents Possible explanations for these figures?

Attitude?• What is the attitude of young people in traffic?• What do they think themselves about….

drunk driving?driving a car under the influence of drugs?riding along with a drunk driver?

• What does their own behaviour look like?• How do they perceive the behaviour of their peers?

Which are the social norms regarding traffic participation within this age group?

Methodology• Survey with questions and propositions based on the Social

Norms Approach:

- Perception of social norms has a big influence on how we behave as individuals- These perceptions are, however, often not accurate because we tend to judge the behaviour of peers as

less sensible than in reality misperceptions

This can lead to the fact that an individual will adapt his behaviour to what is thought to be the group norm.

Methodology

• Young people and adolescents from the Province of Antwerp were invited by means of:

- e-mail (student movements)- link on several websites- social media such as Facebook page and promotion by

means of Facebook and Twitter account of the province of Antwerp…to fill out the online-questionnaire

• The questionnaire was available from April 18th, 2011 until June 30th, 2011

Results• 1,279 participants• Socio-demographic characteristics:• Almost all respondents are students (96.9%)

• The number of women that filled out the questionnaire is remarkably higher (69.3%)

• 84.7% of the respondents lives in the province of Antwerp- 70.4% lives with their parents/guardian- 20.1 % lives in digs- 9.1% has another living situation (mostly living together with partner or family)

Means of transport• Top 3 most important means of transport

Blue = 1st place, red = 2nd place, green = 3rd place

59.8% of the respondents possesses a driving license.• Top 3 : 51.8 % ‘driving a car’

53.3 % ‘car passenger’

Bike Public transport

Driving a car

Carpassenger

On foot Motorcycle

Taxi Other

Going out • Frequency: twice a week: 39%, never: 10.5%, daily: 0.5% most popular days: Friday (70.4%) and Saturday (75.9%)• Budget: In 68.5% of the respondents not more than 20 euro.• Distance covered to go out is only in 11.7% of the

respondents more than 20 km.• Means of transport (%):

Driving a car

Car passenger

Public transport

Bike

On foot

Other

2.1

6.3 20.3

20.4

12.1

38.8

Driving under the influence (DUI)– riding along with a driver under the influence (RADUI)

86.2

13.8

74.3

25.7

No

Yes

81.5

18.5

70.6

29.4

No

Yes

Perception DUI - RADUI

  DUI week DUI weekend

RADUI week RADUI weekend

Underestimation 46.4% 34.7% 44.5% 32.7%

Correct 0.9% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0%

Overestimation 52.7% 54.1% 55.5% 67.3%

Propositions (1)  agree Do not agreeI think that RADUI is unsafe 99% 1%

DUI is risky behaviour 98.1% 1.9%I don’t ride along with a driver under the influence, even if my friends do so,

85.8% 14.2%

DUI is unsafe 99.4% 0.6%I think RADUI is safe 2.8% 97.2%

The risk of something serious happening when driving under the influence is high

93.4% 6.6%

When I drive a car, I don’t drink alcohol 91.5% 8.5%

I have a safe driving style 97.9% 2.1%I think it is a smart choice not to drive under the influence 99% 1%

Ithink DUI is safe 2.2% 97.8%I have a risky driving style 4% 96%I think DUI is unacceptable 93.8% 6.2%When I have to drive a care, I pay attention to how much alcohol I drink

98% 2%

I think it is a smart choice to refuse a lift of a driver under the influence

98.2% 1.8%

I think DUI is dangerous 98.2% 1.8%I prefer to ride along with a sober driver 99.2% 0.8%

The risk of something serious happening when driving under the influence is small

4.6% 95.4%

Propositions (2)

‘When a driver with whom I have to ride along is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I …

agree do not agree

… won’t ride along with him anymore 90% 10%

… won’t undertake any action 16.1% 83.9%

… look for another means to get home 93.1% 6.9%

…would ride along nonetheless 15% 85%

…would  take away his keys 49.5% 49.5%

…would call the police 4.2% 95.8%

…would talk him about his conduct 95.5% 4.5%

…try to sober him up  80.8% 19.2%

Social Norms InterventionMainly based on the propositions Injuctive norms

Follow-up?• Compare baseline-data with data of a follow-up study

- behaviour- perception of behaviour statistically significant changes?

• Following the theory of the social norms approach, a follow-up study is more than desirable.

• In practice, often the necessary financial means are lacking to carry this out.

• Reference: McAlaney, J., Bewick, B. M., and Bauerle, J. (2010) Social Norms Guidebook: A Guide to Implementing the Social Norms Approach in the UK. University of Bradford, University of Leeds, Department of Health: West Yorkshire, UK.

• Sources:Website for statistics of the Belgian Government: http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/verkeer_vervoer/verkeer/ongevallen_slachtoffers/verkeersongevallen/

Questions? I am all ears!