Research Papers (2009 – 2013)

Filename 106.pdf
Filesize 133.01 KB
Version 1
Date added April 23, 2014
Downloaded 8 times
Category 2013 CMRSC XXIII Montréal
Tags Session 2A
Author/Auteur José Ignacio, Nazif Muñozof

Abstract

Several prominent theories have emerged to explain the phenomenon of drinking and driving (DD), yet little is known about whether these theories engage in falsification or integration approaches. Further, no methodology has been suggested to address this problem. This two fold gap prevents us from understanding what social conditions are likely to trigger or avoid DD, and what the limits of each theory are. In order to assess whether analyses of DD rely on falsification or integration, I operationalize the notion of ‘explanatory power’ and apply it to studies carried out in four different countries — Australia, Brazil, Canada, and United States, whereby three criminological theories — Deterrence theory, Differential association, and Control theory — were tested. Both deterrence theory and control theory were found to be very effective in predicting a reduction in alcohol-related crashes and a decreased level of BAC of the drivers. Differential association theory was effective in identifying more precisely the causal mechanism behind drivers who engaged in DD. In theoretical terms, it seems that a soft integrative approach can be more effective for explaining DD, since each theory contributes to enlighten different elements of this behavior. However, the price of this research strategy could be losing parsimony. Lastly, the method suggested here was shown to be useful in addressing the falsification/integration tension within this field of research. However, more DD studies need to be analyzed in order to confirm, reject or change these preliminary results.

José Ignacio, Nazif Muñozof