Walter Roberts1, Mark T Fillmore2. 1. Yale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, 2 Church Street South, Suite 109, New Haven, CT, 06519, United States. 2. University of Kentucky, Department of Psychology, 115 Kastle Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, United States. Electronic address: fillmore@uky.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) are at high risk to reoffend. One reason for this high rate of recidivism among DUI offenders is that these individuals systematically underestimate the degree to which alcohol impairs their ability to drive. This study compared perceived and objective driving ability following alcohol and performance feedback in drivers with and without a history of DUI. METHOD:Adult drivers with (n=20) and without (n=20) a history of DUI arrest attended two dose challenge sessions where they received 0.64g/kgalcohol or placebo, completed a simulated driving task, and provided measures of subjective impairment. They attended a third retesting session where they received feedback that they were impaired by alcohol. They received 0.64g/kg alcohol and their objective and perceived driving ability was retested. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant impairment of driving performance following 0.64g/kg alcohol compared to placebo. DUI offenders rated themselves as less impaired than controls. After performance feedback, self-reported impairment during the alcohol retest increased for DUI offenders but not for controls. There was no effect of performance feedback on objective driving ability. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the notion that under alcohol DUI offenders characteristically perceive themselves as better able to drive than non-offenders. These perceptions can be tempered by performance feedback. To the extent that perceived ability to drive safely after drinking contributes to DUI and its recidivism, feedback geared towards lowering this self-efficacy could reduce willingness to engage in this behavior.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:People arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) are at high risk to reoffend. One reason for this high rate of recidivism among DUI offenders is that these individuals systematically underestimate the degree to which alcohol impairs their ability to drive. This study compared perceived and objective driving ability following alcohol and performance feedback in drivers with and without a history of DUI. METHOD: Adult drivers with (n=20) and without (n=20) a history of DUIarrest attended two dose challenge sessions where they received 0.64g/kg alcohol or placebo, completed a simulated driving task, and provided measures of subjective impairment. They attended a third retesting session where they received feedback that they were impaired by alcohol. They received 0.64g/kg alcohol and their objective and perceived driving ability was retested. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant impairment of driving performance following 0.64g/kg alcohol compared to placebo. DUI offenders rated themselves as less impaired than controls. After performance feedback, self-reported impairment during the alcohol retest increased for DUI offenders but not for controls. There was no effect of performance feedback on objective driving ability. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the notion that under alcoholDUI offenders characteristically perceive themselves as better able to drive than non-offenders. These perceptions can be tempered by performance feedback. To the extent that perceived ability to drive safely after drinking contributes to DUI and its recidivism, feedback geared towards lowering this self-efficacy could reduce willingness to engage in this behavior.
Authors: Jessica Weafer; Daniel Camarillo; Mark T Fillmore; Richard Milich; Cecile A Marczinski Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Walter Roberts; Kelly E Moore; Brian P Pittman; Mark T Fillmore; Sherry A McKee Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Brittney A Hultgren; Katarina Guttmannova; Christine M Lee; Daniela Acuna; Rachel L Cooper; Jason R Kilmer; Jennifer M Cadigan; Brian H Calhoun; Mary E Larimer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-27 Impact factor: 3.752