Increasing Pre-Designated Drivers:
An Extension of a Prompt and Incentive Package

by Cristal Elwood, Lauren Lloyd, Dawn Morris, Anne Tofte, and Matt Zandecki
Florida State University

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), someone is killed in an alcohol-related traffic accident every 30 minutes. These deaths constitute 41 percent of the total traffic fatalities in 2003 (NHTSA, 2003). Although 97 percent of the driving public sees drinking and driving as a threat to their personal safety, the percentage of drunk driving fatalities has remained fairly stable over the years (Gallup Organization, 2003). Several researchers and national programs have attempted to address this community safety issue, although no national policy has been adopted as a result. Perhaps this is due to cost, limited resources, or difficulty of implementation on a micro-level.

One method to curb the number of Driving While Intoxicated tickets (DWIs) is to use a Designated Driver (DD) program. Such a simple step as having a DD can be pragmatic and effective for decreasing the number of drunk drivers and improving the overall safety of the community. However, using a DD program has been seen as controversial. DeJong and Wallack (1992) argued that choosing a DD gives permission for other people in the party to drink excessively, proving just as dangerous to the community’s safety. Also, there is often ambiguity about what constitutes “sobriety.” Many times, a DD is chosen because he or she is the least intoxicated, has not had an alcoholic beverage for over an hour, or because he or she just “feels okay” and is “only driving down the block,” even if he or she believes drinking and driving is wrong. These incongruent attitudes and intentions towards drinking and driving have been explored by MacDonald, Zanna, and Fong (1995) in a study that defines this phenomenon as alcohol myopia: the notion that alcohol intoxication decreases cognitive capacity so that people are more likely to attend to only the most salient cues. Due to this decreased decision making ability in an alcohol-altered state, this study chose to focus on the use of Pre-Designated Drivers (PDDs) – a person who is designated prior to alcohol intake and remains free of any alcoholic drinking throughout the evening.

The purpose of this study was to increase the frequency of PDDs using a cost-effective, non-intrusive prompt and incentive program as a replication and extension of prior research by Brigham, et al. In their 1995 study, the authors used visual prompts of framed posters and placards advertising contingent incentives (free non-alcoholic beverages) for being a DD. Their results showed a significant and effective increase in self-reported DDs. Using a similar setting and population, a local restaurant/bar that caters primarily to patrons aged 25-50 years old, this study used positive placard prompts at the location where patrons order, positive reinforcement of free drinks contingent on a PDD, as well as verbal prompts by the waitstaff.

Method

Setting and Participants

The setting was a local restaurant that served alcoholic beverages of beer, liquor, and wine. The participants were all the patrons drinking alcohol whom entered and left the restaurant at any time during the observation period.

Behavioral Definitions

Designated driving was defined as any instance when an individual who has not consumed an alcoholic beverage prior to driving, during the period observed, transports passengers who have consumed alcohol. Consuming an alcoholic beverage was defined as any instance of liquid containing alcohol passing the lips of an individual and subsequently being swallowed.

Data Collection

Data collection was conducted using a frequency count method on Friday and Saturday nights, two hours before the restaurant closed. The number of customers drinking alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages as well as those who drove cars was collected using behavioral mapping (Lombard, Neubauer, Canfield & Winett, 1991). Data collectors sat in their designated areas and observed patrons in the restaurant using the data sheet seen in Appendix A. Data sheets consisted of the layout of the inside of the restaurant, including tables in the exact location and the number of seats at each table. On the data sheets, the tables had individual sections for each patron, where the data collectors marked whether each drink did or did not contain alcohol. For each instance that a patron consumed an alcoholic beverage, the data collectors marked a “+” in the appropriate section. An “o” was marked for every non-alcoholic beverage. As the patrons left the restaurant, data collectors surreptitiously observed and recorded which patron sat in the driver side of the vehicle upon leaving the parking lot. A short description of each customer was included on the data sheet for easier identification of the designated driver when he or she left the restaurant and entered a car.

Intervention

Baseline data consisted of patrons who were observed purchasing and consuming alcoholic beverages and then proceeded to drive. After a stable baseline was established, a three-part intervention was implemented. The first aspect of the intervention was a sign prompt. The laminated multi-colored sign was placed at the order window and read, “Do you have a designated driver? Free soft drinks to the DD.” The sign was placed at the order window as opposed to the tables because the beverages were ordered before the patron sat at a table.

The second element of the intervention was verbal prompting from the staff at the window. If alcoholic beverages were ordered, the prompt, according to a sign cue, was delivered. The staff person said, “If you have a designated driver tonight, his or her soft drinks are free!”

Continue reading this article (page 2)...