Addictive Behtlviors. Vozl. 17, pp. 407-414, 1992 Printed in the USA. All fights reserved.
0306-4603/92 $ 5.00 + .00 Copyright © 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
P E R S O N A L I T Y TRAITS AND B E H A V I O R S OF A L C O H O L I M P A I R E D DRIVERS: A C O M P A R I S O N OF FIRST AND MULTIPLE OFFENDERS DAVID L. McMILLEN, MICHAEL S. ADAMS, ELISABETH WELLS-PARKER, MARK G. PANG, and BRADLEY J. ANDERSON Mississippi State University Abstract - - Using an interview and questionnaire format, 358 driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) first offenders and 141 DUI multiple offenders were compared on measures of personality traits, drinking behavior and problems, and driving behavior and history. In addition. official driving records for the two groups were compared. Results indicated that multiple offenders were significantly higher in hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression than first offenders. Multiple offenders were significantly lower in emotional adjustment and assertiveness. Multiple offenders had significantly more nontraffic arrests, accidents, and traffic tickets than first offenders. They also consumed significantly more alcohol, evidenced more alcohol problems, and had higher BACs at the time of arrest than first offenders. Results are discussed in terms of general problem behavior and implications for intervention and treatment.
In recent years, considerable attention and effort has been directed toward developing treatment approaches and intervention strategies for persons convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIs). Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of various treatments for DUIs (e.g., Hagen, Williams, & McConnell, 1979; Holden & Stewart, 1982; Peck, Sadler, & Perrine, 1985; Wells-Parker, Anderson, McMillen, & Landrum, 1989). Such studies have provided mixed results regarding effectiveness of various treatments, and several researchers (e.g., Vingilis & Mann, 1986) have suggested that heterogeneity among DUI offenders is an important factor in producing varied treatment outcomes. It is argued that subgroups possessing different personality traits, behaviors, and attitudes exist in the DUI offender population (cf. ArsteinKerslake & Peck, 1986; Donovan, Marlatt, & Salzberg, 1983; Wells-Parker, Cosby, & Landrum, 1986) and that these subtypes have clinical relevance. Effectiveness of treatment would be contingent on the degree to which the treatment was appropriate for the characteristics of the subtype. A number of studies have found DUIs as a group to be characterized by high levels of hostility, impulsivity, sensation seeking, irritability, driving aggression, and competitive speed in comparison with the general driving population (Donovan, Queisser, Salzberg, & Umlauf, 1985; Jessor, 1987; Jonah, 1986; Mayer & Treat, 1977; Zylman, 1974). However, recent research has supported the idea that substantial heterogeneity exists within the population of alcohol-impaired drivers. Jonah and Wilson (1986) compared convicted DUI offenders, admitted but undetected impaired drivers, and drivers who had not recently driven impaired. The data indicated that convicted DUI This research was supported, in part, by Grant R21 AAO7598-01 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Requests for reprints should be sent to David L. McMillen, P.O. Drawer 6161. Mississippi State University. Mississippi State, MS 39762. 407
408
D.L. M c M I L L E N et al.
offenders scored higher on measures of assaultiveness and depression, consumed more alcohol, showed more symptoms of problem drinking, and had more accidents than the other groups. McMillen, Pang, Wells-Parker, and Anderson (1991) compared several groups of young (18-23) drinking drivers and found differences between DUIs apprehended as a result of an accident or moving violation and DUIs apprehended as a result of being stopped in a roadblock or stakeout. Although alcohol consumption was high in both groups (25 drinks per week in the accident/moving violation group and 16 per week in the roadblock/stakeout group as compared to an average of three drinks per week in nondrinking driver groups), those apprehended as a result of a moving violation or accident were significantly higher in hostility, psychopathic deviance, frequency of driving impaired, accidents after drinking, and nontraffic arrests. DUIs apprehended in a stakeout or roadblock differed significantly from nondrinking drivers on only frequency of driving impaired and sensation seeking. These findings are consistent with the Problem Behavior Theory. approach suggested by Jessor (1987) and Wilson and Jonah (1988). Among young drivers, those drinking drivers at greatest risk are characterized by a configuration of problem behaviors. Drinking behavior is one aspect of these problem behaviors, but any treatment approach that centers primarily on alcohol abuse is not likely to be effective with persons possessing the larger cluster of problem behaviors (Mann, Leigh. Vingilis, & deGenova, 1983; Vingilis, 1983). The present study was designed to determine if there are differences between DUI first offenders and multiple offenders in addition to those associated with alcohol abuse. Although there seems to be a generally accepted premise that first offenders and multiple offenders are different, little research has specifically compared the two groups. Perrine (1989) reported greater alcohol consumption, drinking problems, and driving problems for multiple DUI offenders as opposed to DUI first offenders. In the present study, an attempt was made to examine other areas where first offenders and multiple offenders might differ. Personality traits, detailed driving histories, and drinking problems and consumption rates were examined for their possible implications regarding intervention approaches. If alcohol abuse is the primary reason for impaired driving then successful treatment of the drinking problem would eliminate impaired driving. However, if repeat offenses for DUI are an outcome of a wider group of problem behaviors and traits, it is doubtful that a treatment focusing on alcohol abuse will be effective. The design of the present study was to compare first and multiple DUI offenders on variables which have been found to be associated with the DUI population. Alcohol consumption, frequency of impaired driving, alcohol and driving problems, accident history, traffic violations, and nontraffic arrests were compared for the two groups. In addition, the two groups were compared on the personality traits of hostility, sensation seeking, assertiveness, emotional adjustment, depression, mania, and psychopathic deviance. The measures selected for the present study were derived from the previously cited research on factors associated with DUI offenses. Problem Behavior Theory would seem to predict that the DUI multiple offenders would exhibit more of the types of traits and behaviors previously found to be associated with DUI arrestees than first offenders. A group of first offenders could possibly contain a number of individuals for whom impaired driving leading to a DUI arrest was atypical behavior, while multiple DUI arrests would suggest a persistent inability to avoid behaviors that cause problems for the individual and society.
Traits of alcohol-impaired drivers
409
METHOD
Subjects Subjects were 499 DUI offenders from Mississippi and Colorado. The Mississippi group consisted of 172 first offenders and 66 multiple offenders while the Colorado group consisted of 186 first offenders and 75 multiple offenders. Persons were classified as multiple offenders by use of state traffic records and self-report of DUI arrest. If an individual admitted to more than one DUI arrest or the records showed more than one DUI arrest, the person was classified as a multiple offender. Relatively few discrepancies occurred between official records and self-reports. Where discrepancies did occur, selfreport was nearly always higher than official records. All subjects in Mississippi were volunteers from Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP) classes, a court-ordered treatment program for DUI offenders. Subjects in the Colorado group were volunteers from convicted DUIs participating in court-ordered community service as a condition of their probation. In both Mississippi and Colorado in excess of 80% of the potential participants agreed to take part in the study. The average age of the participants was 31.5 and 90% of the participants were males. In both states, participants were from treatment centers located in several areas of the state. Of the total of 499 participants, I0% were black and 12% were Hispanic.
Materials Materials in the study consisted of an interview and a series of questionnaires. The interview was developed by the present authors and contained questions regarding drinking behavior, automobile use, frequency of impaired driving, accident history, traffic violations, and nontraffic arrests. Items from the following questionnaires were employed: • Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957) (a = .70) • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Scales Pd, Ma, & De) (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951) • Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1971) (a = .67) • Rathus Assertiveness Scale (Rathus, 1973) (a = .58) • Alcohol Use Inventory (Horn, Wanberg, & Foster, 1986) (or = .93) • Mortimer-Filkins Drinking Problems Questionnaire (Mortimer, Filkins, Lower, Kerlan, Post, Mudge, & Rosenblatt, 1981) (a -- .72) • Eysenck Personality Inventory (Emotional Adjustment Scale) (Howarth, 1976) (a = .60) The Buss-Durkee, Mortimer-Filkins, Alcohol Use Inventory, and the Pd, Ma, and D Scales of the MMPI were administered in their entirety. The same portions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, Rathus Assertiveness Scale, and Eysenck Personality Inventory employed by Donovan and Marlatt (1982) were used.
Procedure The research questionnaires and interviews were administered during two successive weekly meetings of the MASEP classes (Mississippi) or probation groups (Colorado). All investigators were experienced interviewers. The two sessions took place one week apart; each session lasted approximately 90 min (time varied depending on the speed
410
D . L . M c M I L L E N et al.
of the participant in answering). The order of presentation of the questionnaires was counterbalanced to control for fatigue. All scales were completed in a group testing of 25-35 persons. The interview was always conducted individually during the final session and lasted approximately 15 min. Once the participants were assembled, the chief investigator explained the general purpose and voluntary nature of the study while other investigators distributed questionnaires, answer sheets, and pencils. The following information was given to the participants: We are conducting a study of persons arrested for DUI and would appreciate your cooperation in gathering information. We will be asking you to complete some questionnaires and participate in an interview. The research questionnaires will be administered in two sessions. Part One of the questionnaires will be administered today and Part Two will be administered in the next session. You will participate in a brief interview at the end of the second session. Participation is strictly voluntary and you may stop answering the questions at any time. All responses will be kept confidential; so, please be candid and honest with your answers. If you choose to participate, sign and date both copies of the consent form, keep one, and pass the other one forward. Those agreeing to participate were instructed to begin the questionnaire. As a person completed one questionnaire they were given another until all scheduled for that session had been completed. In the second session when the last questionnaire had been completed, an investigator took the participant to a separate room and conducted the interview. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were thanked for their assistance and encouraged to ask any questions concerning the study.
RESULTS
The data consisted of personality measures (hostility, sensation seeking, emotional adjustment, assertiveness, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression), drinking measures (self-reported consumption and Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire), official driving records (total tickets, accidents, and BAC at time of arrest), self-reported driving record and arrest record (tickets, frequency of impaired driving, accidents, accidents after drinking, accidents at night, accidents involving serious injury or death, and arrests for nontraffic crimes). All variables were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The MANOVA yielded a significant group effect [multivariate F(19,479) = 3.76, p < .0001]. Group means, standard deviations, and the results of univariate ANOVAs for personality variables, Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire, and self-reported alcohol consumption are indicated in Table 1. Group means, standard deviations, and the results of univariate ANOVAs for driving variables and nontraffic arrests are displayed in Table 2. In addition, each table contains ~'- values as an indicator of relationship strength. In general, first offenders and multiple offenders were significantly different. On all personality variables, multiple offenders were significantly different from first offenders. On hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression multiple offenders were higher, and on assertiveness and emotional adjustment they were lower.
Traits of alcohol-impaired drivers
411
Table 1. Group means, standard deviations, F values, probability levels, and o:-"values for personality and alcohol use measures and arrests Measure Hostility Sensation seeking Poor emotional adjustment Assertiveness Psychopathic deviance Mania Depression Mortimer-Filkins Alcohol consumption
First offenders M-SD-M = SD = M = SD = M-SD-M -SD-M = SD = M = SD-M= SD = M= SD =
20.97 9.24 3.17 2.14 1.16 1.34 5.50 2.02 18.08 5.05 18.20 5.11 19.70 5.06 16.18 4.21 2.65 .56
Multiple offenders 23.17 9.53 3.82 2.18 1.71 1.68 4.73 2.24 20.90 5.85 19.72 5.14 21.47 5.84 21.48 4.36 3.73 .67
F
p
w2
5.63
.0180
.010
9.19
.0026
.016
14.40
.0002
.026
13.72
.0002
.024
28.76
.0001
.053
8.80
.0032
.020
11.40
.0008
.020
7.87
.0052
.020
21.50
.0001
.051
Alcohol consumption based on responses to the Alcohol Use Inventory, Quantity Sub-Scale. A value of 2.0 represents up to 3 drinks per day, a value of 3.0 represents up to 6 drinks per day, and a value of 4.0 represents up to 10 drinks per day.
Self-reported alcohol consumption was significantly higher among multiple offenders, and BAC at the time of arrest was significantly higher for multiple offenders. In addition, Mortimer-Filkins scores indicated greater alcohol problems for multiple offenders. Self-reported frequency on impaired driving was not significantly different between the groups. Multiple offenders had significantly more traffic violations and accidents than first offenders according to both official records and self-reports. Self-reports indicated significantly more accidents for multiple offenders. Multiple offenders also had significantly more serious accidents, accidents at night, and accidents after drinking. Selfreported traffic tickets did not differ significantly. Nontraffic arrests (misdemeanors and felonies) were significantly greater among multiple offenders. Frequency of nontraffic arrests was three times higher for the multiple offenders. The average age of each group was calculated, and it was found that first offenders had an average age of 31.6 and multiple offenders had an average age of 31.3. Data from Colorado and Mississippi were also analyzed separately. On all variables both states showed differences between first offenders and multiple offenders in the same direction; therefore, the two states were combined. DISCUSSION
This study was designed to compare the behaviors, personality traits, and perceptions of DUI first offenders and multiple offenders. On nearly every measure examined, multiple offenders differed significantly from first offenders. Multiple offenders had more accidents and traffic violations. Also, multiple offenders were more likely to have been
412
D.L. McMILLEN
et al.
Table 2, Group means, standard deviations. F values, probability levels, and ~.,: values for driving history measures and nontraffic arrests Measure
First offenders
Multiple offenders
F
p
w'-
5.79
.0165
.010
3.88
.0500
.010
10.46
.0013
.020
.46
ns
--
1.62
ns
--
l 1.76
.0007
.042
18.48
.0001
.053
7.37
.0069
.024
4.06
.0443
.011
3 [.32
.0001
.051
Official records BAC
M =
SD =
Accidents
M =
SD =
Traffic tickets
,~I =
SD =
Sell=report Frequency of impaired driving Traffic tickets Accidents Accidents after drinking Accidents at night Serious accidents Arrests
.235 .043 .77 .54 1.19 .79
M = 10.37 2.78 M = 3.25 S O = 1.13 M = 1.32 SD = 1.30 M = .31 SD = .69 M = .57 SD = .95 M = .07 SD = .26
SD =
M =
SD =
.56 .71
.300 .062 1.22 1.29 1.94 1.10 13.16 3.16 4.02 1.21 1.80 1.56 .70 .99 .85 1.18 .13 .38 1.53 .98
Official records cover last 5 y e a r s &driving histoD' for accidents and tickets: s e l f - r e p o r t s refer to total d r i v i n g histoD.
arrested for a misdemeanor or felony than a first offender. In the area of drinking, multiple offenders consumed more alcohol and evidenced greater alcohol problems than first offenders. Their BAC levels were higher at the time of arrests than first offenders. The personality traits of multiple offenders consistently differentiated them from first offenders. Multiple offenders tended to have a lower level of assertiveness and poorer emotional adjustment. Their levels of hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression were higher than those of first offenders. That first offenders and multiple offenders were found to differ is not surprising. As mentioned previously, differences between the two groups are usually assumed in spite of the limited empirical evidence. The present findings are interesting because of the pervasiveness and variety of the differences. Differences were not confined to alcohol consumption rates or alcohol problems. A number of variables were examined; nearly all were significant. In studies with a large number of subjects small differences are frequently significant; however, the present study indicates a consistent pattern regarding the differences between first and multiple offenders. A profile of the multiple offender emerged that indicated greater risk as drivers than first offenders. The personality traits and behaviors of multiple offenders indicated that they may not be the same as alcohol abusers in general. Multiple offenders appear to fit within the more general area of problem behavior described by Jessor (1987). Further research is necessa~, to discover whether alcohol abuse is a cause of other problem behaviors or simply another manifestation of problem behavior. Experimental research has indicated that persons high in sensation seeking and hostility exhibit high risk behavior in a driving simulation (Byrne, 1987; McMillen, Smith, & Wells-Parker, 1989). These studies also showed that persons high in sensation seeking
Traits of alcohol-impaireddrivers
413
and hostility increased their driving risk taking after consuming drinks they believed contained alcohol, while persons low in sensation seeking and hostility reduced their driving risk taking after presumed alcohol consumption. The present study suggests that multiple DUI offenders are more likely than first offenders to possess the personality traits associated with high risk driving and have a driving history indicating they are at greater risk. Also, because ofthe higher alcohol consumption rate among multiple offenders, the effects of these personality factors and high risk driving tendencies would frequently be accentuated by drinking. It is well established that driving performance decreases as BAC increases. Some drinking drivers combine this decrement in performance with increased driving risk taking and aggression. It appears that multiple DUI offenders are especially likely to be in this category. However, the present results should not be interpreted as indicating DUI offenders are without alcohol and behavior problems. Arstein-Kerslake and Peck (1986) demonstrated that DUI first offenders as a group are characterized by alcohol and behavior problems greater than those of the general population. There are several implications of the present study. First, two or more DUI offenses should be considered an indicator of substantially higher driving risk. Second, this increased risk may be a function of more than excessive drinking. Finally, intervention approaches would need to take into account this general cluster of problem characteristics and behaviors to be successful. Multiple offenders are not likely to respond to the education approach often used with first offenders (Mann et al., 1983) nor are they likely to respond to the alcohol-centered treatments characteristic of many multiple offender programs. The present study as well as other research (Jessor, 1987; Wilson & Jonah, 1988; McMillen et al., 1991) suggests the potential value of problem behavior theory in the understanding and treatment of DUI offenders. Although significant differences were consistently present between first and multiple DUI offenders, the strengths of the associations were not large. Research specifically designed to compare first and multiple offender DUIs as well as other drinking driver groups and alcohol abuser groups on a variety of problem behaviors is necessary. Variables such as misdemeanor arrests, felony arrests, fighting, school or job absentee rates, human relations problems, etc., should be examined in terms of the relative frequency in these groups. The fact that an individual has been arrested for DUI may be an indicator of a wide range of problems; being arrested more than once may be a stronger indicator. Research has indicated that a substantial number of people often drive impaired and are heavy users of alcohol yet have never received a DUI citation nor been involved in an alcohol related accident (cf. Jonah and Wilson, 1986; McMillen, 1991). Multiple DUI arrests may suggest problems beyond alcohol abuse.
REFERENCES Arstein-Kerslake, G. W., & Peck, R. C. (1986). A typological analysis of California DUI offenders and DUI recidivism correlates (Tech. Report). Washington, IX?: National Highway Tratfic Safety Administration. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,343-349. Byrne, H. A. ( 1987). The effects of alcohol, expectancy, and hostility~sensation seeking traits on driving behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Donovan, D. M., & Marlatt, G. A. (1982). Personality subtypes among driving-while-intoxicated offenders: Relationships to drinking behavior and driving risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 241-249.
414
D.L. McMILLEN et al.
Donovan. D. M., Marlatt, G. A., & Salzberg, P. M. (1983). Drinking behavior, personality factors, and highrisk driving: A review and theoretical formulation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 44, 395--428. Donovan. D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzberg, P. M., & Umlauf, R. L. (1985). Intoxicated and bad drivers: Subgroups within the same population of high-risk men drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 46, 375453. Hagen, R. W., Williams, R. L., & McConnell, E. J. (1979). The traffic safety impact of alcohol abuse treatment as an alternative to mandated licensing controls. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 11,275-29 I. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. ( 1951 ). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventorv(rev. ed.). New York: The Psychological Corporation. Holden, R. T., & Stewart. L. T. (1982). The Tennessee DUI probation follow-up demonstration project. In
National Safety Council Second Symposium on Traffic Sa[ety Effectiveness (Impact) Evaluation Project (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Horn, J. L.. Wanberg, K. W., & Foster, F. M. (1986). Guide to the alcohol use inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Howarth, E. (1976). A psychometric investigation of Eysenck's Personality Inventor3,. Journal ~fPersonality Assessment. 40, 173-185. Jessor, R. (1987). Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: An extension of Problem Behavior Theory.
Alcohol Drugs. and Driving. 3, 1- 11. Jonah, B. A. (1986). Accident risk and risk-taking behavior among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 18, 255-271. Jonah, B. A., & Wilson. R. J. (1986). Impaired drivers who have never been caught: ,,Ire they di.~erentfrom convicted impaired drivers? (Technical Paper Series 860195). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Mann, R. E., Leigh, G., Vingilis, E. R.. & deGenova, K. (1983). A critical review on the effectiveness of drinking-driving rehabilitation programmes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 15, 441-461. Mayer, R. E., & Treat. J. R. (1977). Psychological, social, and cognitive characteristics of high-risk drivers: A pilot study. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 9, 1-8. McMillen, D. L.. Pang. M. G.. Wells-Parker, E.. & Anderson, B. J. (1991). Behavior and personality traits among DUI arrestees, nonarrested impaired drivers, and nonimpaired drivers. International Journal ~I" the Addictions, 26, 227-235. McMillen, D. L., Smith, S., & Wells-Parker, E. (1989). Effects of alcohol, expectancy, and sensation seeking on driving risk taking. Addictive Behaviors. 14, 477-483. Mortimer. R. G., Filkins, L. D., Lower, J. S., Kerlan, M. W., Post, D. V., Mudge, B., & Rosenblatt, C. A. ( 1981 ). Development of court room procedures for identifvingproblem drinkers. Report on Phase I. Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan. Contract No. FH- I 1-7615. DOT HS-800-630. Peck, R. C., Sadler, D. D., & Perrine, M. W. (1985). The comparative effectiveness of alcohol rehabilitation and licensing control action for drunk driving offenders: A review of the literature. Alcohol Drugs. and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews. 1, 15-39. Perrine. M. W. (1975). The Vermont driver profile: A psychometric approach to early identification of potential high-risk drinking drivers. In S. Israelstam & S. Lambert (Eds.), Alcohol. Drugs and Tra~c Safety. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. Rathus. S. A. (1973). A 30-item scale for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy. 4, 398-406. Vingilis. E. R. (1983). Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are they from the the same population? In R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, & Schmidt (Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems (pp. 299-342). Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. Vingilis. E. R., & Mann, R. E. (1986). Toward an interactionist approach to drink-driving behavior: Implications for prevention and research. Health Education Research. 4, 273-288. Wells-Parker, E., Anderson, B. J., McMillen, D. L., & Landrum, J. W. (1989). Interactions among DUI offender characteristics and traditional intervention modalities: A long-term recidivism follow-up. British Jottrnal o[Addictions, 84, 381-390. Wells-Parker, E.. Cosby, P. J.. & Landrum, J. W. (1986). A typology for drinking driving offenders: Methods for classification and policy implications. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 18, 453-483. Wilson. R. J., & Jonah, B. A. (1988). The application of problem behavior theory to the understanding of risky driving. Alcohol Drugs and Driving, 4, 173-191. Zuckerman, M. ( 1971 ). Dimension of sensation seeking. Journal of Consttlting and Clinical Psychology. 36, 45-52. Zylman, R. (1974). Overemphasis on alcohol may be costing lives. Police Chief 41, 64-67.
0306-4603/92 $ 5.00 + .00 Copyright © 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd.
P E R S O N A L I T Y TRAITS AND B E H A V I O R S OF A L C O H O L I M P A I R E D DRIVERS: A C O M P A R I S O N OF FIRST AND MULTIPLE OFFENDERS DAVID L. McMILLEN, MICHAEL S. ADAMS, ELISABETH WELLS-PARKER, MARK G. PANG, and BRADLEY J. ANDERSON Mississippi State University Abstract - - Using an interview and questionnaire format, 358 driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) first offenders and 141 DUI multiple offenders were compared on measures of personality traits, drinking behavior and problems, and driving behavior and history. In addition. official driving records for the two groups were compared. Results indicated that multiple offenders were significantly higher in hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression than first offenders. Multiple offenders were significantly lower in emotional adjustment and assertiveness. Multiple offenders had significantly more nontraffic arrests, accidents, and traffic tickets than first offenders. They also consumed significantly more alcohol, evidenced more alcohol problems, and had higher BACs at the time of arrest than first offenders. Results are discussed in terms of general problem behavior and implications for intervention and treatment.
In recent years, considerable attention and effort has been directed toward developing treatment approaches and intervention strategies for persons convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIs). Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of various treatments for DUIs (e.g., Hagen, Williams, & McConnell, 1979; Holden & Stewart, 1982; Peck, Sadler, & Perrine, 1985; Wells-Parker, Anderson, McMillen, & Landrum, 1989). Such studies have provided mixed results regarding effectiveness of various treatments, and several researchers (e.g., Vingilis & Mann, 1986) have suggested that heterogeneity among DUI offenders is an important factor in producing varied treatment outcomes. It is argued that subgroups possessing different personality traits, behaviors, and attitudes exist in the DUI offender population (cf. ArsteinKerslake & Peck, 1986; Donovan, Marlatt, & Salzberg, 1983; Wells-Parker, Cosby, & Landrum, 1986) and that these subtypes have clinical relevance. Effectiveness of treatment would be contingent on the degree to which the treatment was appropriate for the characteristics of the subtype. A number of studies have found DUIs as a group to be characterized by high levels of hostility, impulsivity, sensation seeking, irritability, driving aggression, and competitive speed in comparison with the general driving population (Donovan, Queisser, Salzberg, & Umlauf, 1985; Jessor, 1987; Jonah, 1986; Mayer & Treat, 1977; Zylman, 1974). However, recent research has supported the idea that substantial heterogeneity exists within the population of alcohol-impaired drivers. Jonah and Wilson (1986) compared convicted DUI offenders, admitted but undetected impaired drivers, and drivers who had not recently driven impaired. The data indicated that convicted DUI This research was supported, in part, by Grant R21 AAO7598-01 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Requests for reprints should be sent to David L. McMillen, P.O. Drawer 6161. Mississippi State University. Mississippi State, MS 39762. 407
408
D.L. M c M I L L E N et al.
offenders scored higher on measures of assaultiveness and depression, consumed more alcohol, showed more symptoms of problem drinking, and had more accidents than the other groups. McMillen, Pang, Wells-Parker, and Anderson (1991) compared several groups of young (18-23) drinking drivers and found differences between DUIs apprehended as a result of an accident or moving violation and DUIs apprehended as a result of being stopped in a roadblock or stakeout. Although alcohol consumption was high in both groups (25 drinks per week in the accident/moving violation group and 16 per week in the roadblock/stakeout group as compared to an average of three drinks per week in nondrinking driver groups), those apprehended as a result of a moving violation or accident were significantly higher in hostility, psychopathic deviance, frequency of driving impaired, accidents after drinking, and nontraffic arrests. DUIs apprehended in a stakeout or roadblock differed significantly from nondrinking drivers on only frequency of driving impaired and sensation seeking. These findings are consistent with the Problem Behavior Theory. approach suggested by Jessor (1987) and Wilson and Jonah (1988). Among young drivers, those drinking drivers at greatest risk are characterized by a configuration of problem behaviors. Drinking behavior is one aspect of these problem behaviors, but any treatment approach that centers primarily on alcohol abuse is not likely to be effective with persons possessing the larger cluster of problem behaviors (Mann, Leigh. Vingilis, & deGenova, 1983; Vingilis, 1983). The present study was designed to determine if there are differences between DUI first offenders and multiple offenders in addition to those associated with alcohol abuse. Although there seems to be a generally accepted premise that first offenders and multiple offenders are different, little research has specifically compared the two groups. Perrine (1989) reported greater alcohol consumption, drinking problems, and driving problems for multiple DUI offenders as opposed to DUI first offenders. In the present study, an attempt was made to examine other areas where first offenders and multiple offenders might differ. Personality traits, detailed driving histories, and drinking problems and consumption rates were examined for their possible implications regarding intervention approaches. If alcohol abuse is the primary reason for impaired driving then successful treatment of the drinking problem would eliminate impaired driving. However, if repeat offenses for DUI are an outcome of a wider group of problem behaviors and traits, it is doubtful that a treatment focusing on alcohol abuse will be effective. The design of the present study was to compare first and multiple DUI offenders on variables which have been found to be associated with the DUI population. Alcohol consumption, frequency of impaired driving, alcohol and driving problems, accident history, traffic violations, and nontraffic arrests were compared for the two groups. In addition, the two groups were compared on the personality traits of hostility, sensation seeking, assertiveness, emotional adjustment, depression, mania, and psychopathic deviance. The measures selected for the present study were derived from the previously cited research on factors associated with DUI offenses. Problem Behavior Theory would seem to predict that the DUI multiple offenders would exhibit more of the types of traits and behaviors previously found to be associated with DUI arrestees than first offenders. A group of first offenders could possibly contain a number of individuals for whom impaired driving leading to a DUI arrest was atypical behavior, while multiple DUI arrests would suggest a persistent inability to avoid behaviors that cause problems for the individual and society.
Traits of alcohol-impaired drivers
409
METHOD
Subjects Subjects were 499 DUI offenders from Mississippi and Colorado. The Mississippi group consisted of 172 first offenders and 66 multiple offenders while the Colorado group consisted of 186 first offenders and 75 multiple offenders. Persons were classified as multiple offenders by use of state traffic records and self-report of DUI arrest. If an individual admitted to more than one DUI arrest or the records showed more than one DUI arrest, the person was classified as a multiple offender. Relatively few discrepancies occurred between official records and self-reports. Where discrepancies did occur, selfreport was nearly always higher than official records. All subjects in Mississippi were volunteers from Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP) classes, a court-ordered treatment program for DUI offenders. Subjects in the Colorado group were volunteers from convicted DUIs participating in court-ordered community service as a condition of their probation. In both Mississippi and Colorado in excess of 80% of the potential participants agreed to take part in the study. The average age of the participants was 31.5 and 90% of the participants were males. In both states, participants were from treatment centers located in several areas of the state. Of the total of 499 participants, I0% were black and 12% were Hispanic.
Materials Materials in the study consisted of an interview and a series of questionnaires. The interview was developed by the present authors and contained questions regarding drinking behavior, automobile use, frequency of impaired driving, accident history, traffic violations, and nontraffic arrests. Items from the following questionnaires were employed: • Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (Buss & Durkee, 1957) (a = .70) • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Scales Pd, Ma, & De) (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951) • Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1971) (a = .67) • Rathus Assertiveness Scale (Rathus, 1973) (a = .58) • Alcohol Use Inventory (Horn, Wanberg, & Foster, 1986) (or = .93) • Mortimer-Filkins Drinking Problems Questionnaire (Mortimer, Filkins, Lower, Kerlan, Post, Mudge, & Rosenblatt, 1981) (a -- .72) • Eysenck Personality Inventory (Emotional Adjustment Scale) (Howarth, 1976) (a = .60) The Buss-Durkee, Mortimer-Filkins, Alcohol Use Inventory, and the Pd, Ma, and D Scales of the MMPI were administered in their entirety. The same portions of the Sensation Seeking Scale, Rathus Assertiveness Scale, and Eysenck Personality Inventory employed by Donovan and Marlatt (1982) were used.
Procedure The research questionnaires and interviews were administered during two successive weekly meetings of the MASEP classes (Mississippi) or probation groups (Colorado). All investigators were experienced interviewers. The two sessions took place one week apart; each session lasted approximately 90 min (time varied depending on the speed
410
D . L . M c M I L L E N et al.
of the participant in answering). The order of presentation of the questionnaires was counterbalanced to control for fatigue. All scales were completed in a group testing of 25-35 persons. The interview was always conducted individually during the final session and lasted approximately 15 min. Once the participants were assembled, the chief investigator explained the general purpose and voluntary nature of the study while other investigators distributed questionnaires, answer sheets, and pencils. The following information was given to the participants: We are conducting a study of persons arrested for DUI and would appreciate your cooperation in gathering information. We will be asking you to complete some questionnaires and participate in an interview. The research questionnaires will be administered in two sessions. Part One of the questionnaires will be administered today and Part Two will be administered in the next session. You will participate in a brief interview at the end of the second session. Participation is strictly voluntary and you may stop answering the questions at any time. All responses will be kept confidential; so, please be candid and honest with your answers. If you choose to participate, sign and date both copies of the consent form, keep one, and pass the other one forward. Those agreeing to participate were instructed to begin the questionnaire. As a person completed one questionnaire they were given another until all scheduled for that session had been completed. In the second session when the last questionnaire had been completed, an investigator took the participant to a separate room and conducted the interview. At the conclusion of the interview, participants were thanked for their assistance and encouraged to ask any questions concerning the study.
RESULTS
The data consisted of personality measures (hostility, sensation seeking, emotional adjustment, assertiveness, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression), drinking measures (self-reported consumption and Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire), official driving records (total tickets, accidents, and BAC at time of arrest), self-reported driving record and arrest record (tickets, frequency of impaired driving, accidents, accidents after drinking, accidents at night, accidents involving serious injury or death, and arrests for nontraffic crimes). All variables were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA). The MANOVA yielded a significant group effect [multivariate F(19,479) = 3.76, p < .0001]. Group means, standard deviations, and the results of univariate ANOVAs for personality variables, Mortimer-Filkins Questionnaire, and self-reported alcohol consumption are indicated in Table 1. Group means, standard deviations, and the results of univariate ANOVAs for driving variables and nontraffic arrests are displayed in Table 2. In addition, each table contains ~'- values as an indicator of relationship strength. In general, first offenders and multiple offenders were significantly different. On all personality variables, multiple offenders were significantly different from first offenders. On hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression multiple offenders were higher, and on assertiveness and emotional adjustment they were lower.
Traits of alcohol-impaired drivers
411
Table 1. Group means, standard deviations, F values, probability levels, and o:-"values for personality and alcohol use measures and arrests Measure Hostility Sensation seeking Poor emotional adjustment Assertiveness Psychopathic deviance Mania Depression Mortimer-Filkins Alcohol consumption
First offenders M-SD-M = SD = M = SD = M-SD-M -SD-M = SD = M = SD-M= SD = M= SD =
20.97 9.24 3.17 2.14 1.16 1.34 5.50 2.02 18.08 5.05 18.20 5.11 19.70 5.06 16.18 4.21 2.65 .56
Multiple offenders 23.17 9.53 3.82 2.18 1.71 1.68 4.73 2.24 20.90 5.85 19.72 5.14 21.47 5.84 21.48 4.36 3.73 .67
F
p
w2
5.63
.0180
.010
9.19
.0026
.016
14.40
.0002
.026
13.72
.0002
.024
28.76
.0001
.053
8.80
.0032
.020
11.40
.0008
.020
7.87
.0052
.020
21.50
.0001
.051
Alcohol consumption based on responses to the Alcohol Use Inventory, Quantity Sub-Scale. A value of 2.0 represents up to 3 drinks per day, a value of 3.0 represents up to 6 drinks per day, and a value of 4.0 represents up to 10 drinks per day.
Self-reported alcohol consumption was significantly higher among multiple offenders, and BAC at the time of arrest was significantly higher for multiple offenders. In addition, Mortimer-Filkins scores indicated greater alcohol problems for multiple offenders. Self-reported frequency on impaired driving was not significantly different between the groups. Multiple offenders had significantly more traffic violations and accidents than first offenders according to both official records and self-reports. Self-reports indicated significantly more accidents for multiple offenders. Multiple offenders also had significantly more serious accidents, accidents at night, and accidents after drinking. Selfreported traffic tickets did not differ significantly. Nontraffic arrests (misdemeanors and felonies) were significantly greater among multiple offenders. Frequency of nontraffic arrests was three times higher for the multiple offenders. The average age of each group was calculated, and it was found that first offenders had an average age of 31.6 and multiple offenders had an average age of 31.3. Data from Colorado and Mississippi were also analyzed separately. On all variables both states showed differences between first offenders and multiple offenders in the same direction; therefore, the two states were combined. DISCUSSION
This study was designed to compare the behaviors, personality traits, and perceptions of DUI first offenders and multiple offenders. On nearly every measure examined, multiple offenders differed significantly from first offenders. Multiple offenders had more accidents and traffic violations. Also, multiple offenders were more likely to have been
412
D.L. McMILLEN
et al.
Table 2, Group means, standard deviations. F values, probability levels, and ~.,: values for driving history measures and nontraffic arrests Measure
First offenders
Multiple offenders
F
p
w'-
5.79
.0165
.010
3.88
.0500
.010
10.46
.0013
.020
.46
ns
--
1.62
ns
--
l 1.76
.0007
.042
18.48
.0001
.053
7.37
.0069
.024
4.06
.0443
.011
3 [.32
.0001
.051
Official records BAC
M =
SD =
Accidents
M =
SD =
Traffic tickets
,~I =
SD =
Sell=report Frequency of impaired driving Traffic tickets Accidents Accidents after drinking Accidents at night Serious accidents Arrests
.235 .043 .77 .54 1.19 .79
M = 10.37 2.78 M = 3.25 S O = 1.13 M = 1.32 SD = 1.30 M = .31 SD = .69 M = .57 SD = .95 M = .07 SD = .26
SD =
M =
SD =
.56 .71
.300 .062 1.22 1.29 1.94 1.10 13.16 3.16 4.02 1.21 1.80 1.56 .70 .99 .85 1.18 .13 .38 1.53 .98
Official records cover last 5 y e a r s &driving histoD' for accidents and tickets: s e l f - r e p o r t s refer to total d r i v i n g histoD.
arrested for a misdemeanor or felony than a first offender. In the area of drinking, multiple offenders consumed more alcohol and evidenced greater alcohol problems than first offenders. Their BAC levels were higher at the time of arrests than first offenders. The personality traits of multiple offenders consistently differentiated them from first offenders. Multiple offenders tended to have a lower level of assertiveness and poorer emotional adjustment. Their levels of hostility, sensation seeking, psychopathic deviance, mania, and depression were higher than those of first offenders. That first offenders and multiple offenders were found to differ is not surprising. As mentioned previously, differences between the two groups are usually assumed in spite of the limited empirical evidence. The present findings are interesting because of the pervasiveness and variety of the differences. Differences were not confined to alcohol consumption rates or alcohol problems. A number of variables were examined; nearly all were significant. In studies with a large number of subjects small differences are frequently significant; however, the present study indicates a consistent pattern regarding the differences between first and multiple offenders. A profile of the multiple offender emerged that indicated greater risk as drivers than first offenders. The personality traits and behaviors of multiple offenders indicated that they may not be the same as alcohol abusers in general. Multiple offenders appear to fit within the more general area of problem behavior described by Jessor (1987). Further research is necessa~, to discover whether alcohol abuse is a cause of other problem behaviors or simply another manifestation of problem behavior. Experimental research has indicated that persons high in sensation seeking and hostility exhibit high risk behavior in a driving simulation (Byrne, 1987; McMillen, Smith, & Wells-Parker, 1989). These studies also showed that persons high in sensation seeking
Traits of alcohol-impaireddrivers
413
and hostility increased their driving risk taking after consuming drinks they believed contained alcohol, while persons low in sensation seeking and hostility reduced their driving risk taking after presumed alcohol consumption. The present study suggests that multiple DUI offenders are more likely than first offenders to possess the personality traits associated with high risk driving and have a driving history indicating they are at greater risk. Also, because ofthe higher alcohol consumption rate among multiple offenders, the effects of these personality factors and high risk driving tendencies would frequently be accentuated by drinking. It is well established that driving performance decreases as BAC increases. Some drinking drivers combine this decrement in performance with increased driving risk taking and aggression. It appears that multiple DUI offenders are especially likely to be in this category. However, the present results should not be interpreted as indicating DUI offenders are without alcohol and behavior problems. Arstein-Kerslake and Peck (1986) demonstrated that DUI first offenders as a group are characterized by alcohol and behavior problems greater than those of the general population. There are several implications of the present study. First, two or more DUI offenses should be considered an indicator of substantially higher driving risk. Second, this increased risk may be a function of more than excessive drinking. Finally, intervention approaches would need to take into account this general cluster of problem characteristics and behaviors to be successful. Multiple offenders are not likely to respond to the education approach often used with first offenders (Mann et al., 1983) nor are they likely to respond to the alcohol-centered treatments characteristic of many multiple offender programs. The present study as well as other research (Jessor, 1987; Wilson & Jonah, 1988; McMillen et al., 1991) suggests the potential value of problem behavior theory in the understanding and treatment of DUI offenders. Although significant differences were consistently present between first and multiple DUI offenders, the strengths of the associations were not large. Research specifically designed to compare first and multiple offender DUIs as well as other drinking driver groups and alcohol abuser groups on a variety of problem behaviors is necessary. Variables such as misdemeanor arrests, felony arrests, fighting, school or job absentee rates, human relations problems, etc., should be examined in terms of the relative frequency in these groups. The fact that an individual has been arrested for DUI may be an indicator of a wide range of problems; being arrested more than once may be a stronger indicator. Research has indicated that a substantial number of people often drive impaired and are heavy users of alcohol yet have never received a DUI citation nor been involved in an alcohol related accident (cf. Jonah and Wilson, 1986; McMillen, 1991). Multiple DUI arrests may suggest problems beyond alcohol abuse.
REFERENCES Arstein-Kerslake, G. W., & Peck, R. C. (1986). A typological analysis of California DUI offenders and DUI recidivism correlates (Tech. Report). Washington, IX?: National Highway Tratfic Safety Administration. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21,343-349. Byrne, H. A. ( 1987). The effects of alcohol, expectancy, and hostility~sensation seeking traits on driving behavior. Unpublished master's thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Donovan, D. M., & Marlatt, G. A. (1982). Personality subtypes among driving-while-intoxicated offenders: Relationships to drinking behavior and driving risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 241-249.
414
D.L. McMILLEN et al.
Donovan. D. M., Marlatt, G. A., & Salzberg, P. M. (1983). Drinking behavior, personality factors, and highrisk driving: A review and theoretical formulation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 44, 395--428. Donovan. D. M., Queisser, H. R., Salzberg, P. M., & Umlauf, R. L. (1985). Intoxicated and bad drivers: Subgroups within the same population of high-risk men drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 46, 375453. Hagen, R. W., Williams, R. L., & McConnell, E. J. (1979). The traffic safety impact of alcohol abuse treatment as an alternative to mandated licensing controls. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 11,275-29 I. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. ( 1951 ). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventorv(rev. ed.). New York: The Psychological Corporation. Holden, R. T., & Stewart. L. T. (1982). The Tennessee DUI probation follow-up demonstration project. In
National Safety Council Second Symposium on Traffic Sa[ety Effectiveness (Impact) Evaluation Project (pp. 1-17). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Horn, J. L.. Wanberg, K. W., & Foster, F. M. (1986). Guide to the alcohol use inventory. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems. Howarth, E. (1976). A psychometric investigation of Eysenck's Personality Inventor3,. Journal ~fPersonality Assessment. 40, 173-185. Jessor, R. (1987). Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: An extension of Problem Behavior Theory.
Alcohol Drugs. and Driving. 3, 1- 11. Jonah, B. A. (1986). Accident risk and risk-taking behavior among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 18, 255-271. Jonah, B. A., & Wilson. R. J. (1986). Impaired drivers who have never been caught: ,,Ire they di.~erentfrom convicted impaired drivers? (Technical Paper Series 860195). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Mann, R. E., Leigh, G., Vingilis, E. R.. & deGenova, K. (1983). A critical review on the effectiveness of drinking-driving rehabilitation programmes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 15, 441-461. Mayer, R. E., & Treat. J. R. (1977). Psychological, social, and cognitive characteristics of high-risk drivers: A pilot study. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 9, 1-8. McMillen, D. L.. Pang. M. G.. Wells-Parker, E.. & Anderson, B. J. (1991). Behavior and personality traits among DUI arrestees, nonarrested impaired drivers, and nonimpaired drivers. International Journal ~I" the Addictions, 26, 227-235. McMillen, D. L., Smith, S., & Wells-Parker, E. (1989). Effects of alcohol, expectancy, and sensation seeking on driving risk taking. Addictive Behaviors. 14, 477-483. Mortimer. R. G., Filkins, L. D., Lower, J. S., Kerlan, M. W., Post, D. V., Mudge, B., & Rosenblatt, C. A. ( 1981 ). Development of court room procedures for identifvingproblem drinkers. Report on Phase I. Highway Safety Research Institute, University of Michigan. Contract No. FH- I 1-7615. DOT HS-800-630. Peck, R. C., Sadler, D. D., & Perrine, M. W. (1985). The comparative effectiveness of alcohol rehabilitation and licensing control action for drunk driving offenders: A review of the literature. Alcohol Drugs. and Driving: Abstracts and Reviews. 1, 15-39. Perrine. M. W. (1975). The Vermont driver profile: A psychometric approach to early identification of potential high-risk drinking drivers. In S. Israelstam & S. Lambert (Eds.), Alcohol. Drugs and Tra~c Safety. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario. Rathus. S. A. (1973). A 30-item scale for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy. 4, 398-406. Vingilis. E. R. (1983). Drinking drivers and alcoholics: Are they from the the same population? In R. G. Smart, F. B. Glaser, Y. Israel, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, & Schmidt (Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems (pp. 299-342). Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. Vingilis. E. R., & Mann, R. E. (1986). Toward an interactionist approach to drink-driving behavior: Implications for prevention and research. Health Education Research. 4, 273-288. Wells-Parker, E., Anderson, B. J., McMillen, D. L., & Landrum, J. W. (1989). Interactions among DUI offender characteristics and traditional intervention modalities: A long-term recidivism follow-up. British Jottrnal o[Addictions, 84, 381-390. Wells-Parker, E.. Cosby, P. J.. & Landrum, J. W. (1986). A typology for drinking driving offenders: Methods for classification and policy implications. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 18, 453-483. Wilson. R. J., & Jonah, B. A. (1988). The application of problem behavior theory to the understanding of risky driving. Alcohol Drugs and Driving, 4, 173-191. Zuckerman, M. ( 1971 ). Dimension of sensation seeking. Journal of Consttlting and Clinical Psychology. 36, 45-52. Zylman, R. (1974). Overemphasis on alcohol may be costing lives. Police Chief 41, 64-67.
