DRUID outcomes and risk communication to young drivers

Transcription

Project No. TREN-05-FP6TR-S07.61320-518404-DRUID
DRUID
Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines
Integrated Project 1.6. Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystem 1.6.2: Sustainable Surface Transport
6th Framework Programme
Deliverable 7.4.3
DRUID outcomes and risk communication
to young drivers
Due date of deliverable: 30.07.2011
Actual submission date: XX.XX.2011
Revision date: XX.XX.2011
Start date of project: 15.10.2006 Duration: 48 months
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: BASt
Revision 0.0
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006)
Dissemination Level
PU
PP
RE
CO
Public
Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission
Services)
Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission
Services)
x
2
Authors
Michael Heißing, Hardy Holte, Horst Schulze (BASt, Federal Highway Institute, Germany)
Eva Baumann, Christoph Klimmt (Department of Journalism and Communication Research
(IJK, Hanover University of Music, Drama, and Media, Germany)
Partners:
Katerina Touliou, Dimitri Margaritis, Pavlos Spanidis (CERTH-HIT, Greece)
Silvia Ravera, Susana Monteiro, Han de Gier, (RUGPha, University of Groningen, the Netherlands)
Sara-Ann Legrand, Trudy Van der Linden, Alain Verstraete (Ugent, Ghent University, Belgium)
Inmaculada Fierro, Trinidad Gómez-Talegón, M. Carmen Del Río, F. Javier Alvarez (UVa,University of
Valladolid, Spain)
Uta Meesmann, Sofie Boets, Mark Tant (IBSR-BIVV, Belgian Road Safety Institute, Belgium)
Wolfram Hell (LMU, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Institute for Forensic Medicine, Germany)
Sub Contractors:
Eva Baumann, Christoph Klimmt (Department of Journalism and Communication Research (IJK),
Hanover University of Music, Drama, and Media, Germany)
Task 7.4 leader: Evangelos Bekiaris (CERTH-HIT, Greece)
Work Package Leader: Han de Gier, (RUGPha, University of Groningen, the Netherlands)
Project Co-ordinator: Horst Schulze (BASt, Germany)
Project Funded by the European Commission under the Transport RTD Programme of the 6th Framework Program
3
CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 6
PRELIMINARY REMARKS ....................................................................................................................................... 7
1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 8
2
EXPERT WORKSHOP ON RISK COMMUNICATION .................................................................................... 10
2.1
Organization
10
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
Presentation of target group related DRUID outcomes – Input from other DRUID tasks
10
Prevalence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances in drivers ..................................................... 10
The risk of alcohol and illicit drugs for road safety ................................................................................. 11
Recent country specific data from Germany .......................................................................................... 12
Motives behind DUI/DUID....................................................................................................................... 13
General conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 13
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
Expert-discussion of the results and recommendations of the workshop
14
Recommendations on goals and objectives ............................................................................................ 14
Recommendations on target group of communication .......................................................................... 14
Recommendations on communication strategies and messages ........................................................... 14
Recommendations on communicators ................................................................................................... 15
Synopsis - Recommendations on feasible concepts................................................................................ 15
SURVEY ON RISK COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................ 17
3
3.1
Aims
17
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
Method
17
Research design ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Survey questions ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Strategy of analysis ................................................................................................................................. 20
3.3
3.3.1
Sample
21
Demographic & socioeconomic data ...................................................................................................... 21
3.4
Results
22
3.4.1
Descriptive analysis ................................................................................................................................. 22
3.4.1.1 Consumption of drugs .......................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1.2 Consumption of alcohol........................................................................................................................ 24
3.4.1.3 Consumption of medicines ................................................................................................................... 24
3.4.1.4 Young drivers and prospective drivers ................................................................................................. 26
3.4.2
Experiences and attitudes towards DUI .................................................................................................. 29
3.4.2.1 Perceptions and attitudes .................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2.2 Social norms ......................................................................................................................................... 34
3.4.2.3 Perceived behavioural control.............................................................................................................. 35
3.4.2.4 DUI-intentions ...................................................................................................................................... 36
3.4.2.5 DUI-behaviour ...................................................................................................................................... 36
3.4.2.6 Experiences and attitudes towards DUI as a fellow passenger ............................................................ 38
3.4.3
Interest and engagement in DUI-topics .................................................................................................. 41
3.4.4
Media use and preferences for channels and message contents ........................................................... 45
3.4.4.1 General media use ................................................................................................................................ 45
4
3.4.4.2 In-depth-analysis of online-communication ......................................................................................... 50
3.4.4.3 Credibility and trustfulness of different sources of information .......................................................... 56
3.4.4.4 Celebrity endorsement ......................................................................................................................... 62
3.4.5 Risk groups as audiences: in-depth analysis for young people with affinity to alcohol, drugs and driving ..
.............................................................................................................................................................. 64
3.4.5.1 Risk group analysis: relevance and categorization procedure ............................................................. 64
3.4.5.2 Comparative analysis of key communication issues among DUI-related risk groups .......................... 66
4
SYNOPSIS .............................................................................................................................................71
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
4.1.7
Discussion
71
Definition of the target group ................................................................................................................. 71
Age related risks ...................................................................................................................................... 72
Attitudes .................................................................................................................................................. 72
Aims of risk communication .................................................................................................................... 73
Communication patterns in online-communities ................................................................................... 73
Credibility of the communicators............................................................................................................ 74
Communication strategy ......................................................................................................................... 75
4.2
Conclusions
5
75
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................................77
5.1
Publications
77
5.2
DRUID Deliverables
77
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ............................................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT LIST EXPERT WORKSHOP ............................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE (TRANSLATION) ........................................................................................................ 82
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE (ORIGINAL VERSION)................................................................................................ 92
5
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation
BAC
DRUID
DUI
DUID
D x.x.x
EU
EC
WP
Full description
Blood alcohol concentration
Driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines
Driving under the influence of psychoactive substances
Driving under the influence of drugs
DRUID deliverable number x.x.x
European Union
European Commission
Work package
6
Executive summary
Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines remains a key risk factor in road transport
across Europe. Young drivers aged 18 to 24 years are particularly likely to be driving under the influence
of such agents. Therefore, young people’s risk awareness concerning (combined) use of alcohol, drugs,
and/or medicines prior to steering a car, and their intentions to engage in such risky behaviour, emerge
as relevant domains for improving road safety. The EU project DRUID is (among other goals) dedicated
to elaborating new and promising strategies for risk communication on the alcohol/drugs/medicines issue
to young drivers.
The present report summarizes the results of a social marketing research approach, which was chosen to
define appropriate risk communication measures for young drivers. A workshop with media experts,
psychologists, social workers, police bodies and representatives from road safety agencies and
governmental institutions was conducted to develop recommendations for appropriate media-based
concepts for risk communication on the base of the DRUID outcomes.
The recommendations of the experts served as input for the subsequent formative evaluation.
A representative sample of 15- to 24-year olds in Germany was interviewed about (A) their personal
experiences and attitudes concerning driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and/or medicines, (B)
the knowledge and motivational base for processing thematic risk communication messages, and (C)
specific issues in media use and preferences for risk message contents and channels.
Findings indicate that susceptibility to drink-driving and drug-driving applies to about 25 percent of young
people. Permissive attitudes are more common among males and among formally low-educated
individuals. Prospective drivers (mostly aged 15 to 17) display a slightly more positive attitude towards
drink-driving and drug-driving than active drivers. With regard to talking and learning about DUI topics,
strong preferences for peer communication were observed. In terms of important media channels, social
network sites turned out as a promising pathway to reach out to young people. Overall, these and further
results provide important foundations for adjusting DUI-related risk communication to low- and high-risk
groups among prospective and active young drivers.
The method of a scientific-based development, implementation and evaluation of road safety measures
for young drivers as described in this report is transferable to all European countries. Limitations can be
expected to exist for certain country specific findings about the target group. To what extent the results of
this report are directly transferable, has to be verified case wise. Nevertheless, specific findings in one
country may provide important clues for road safety measures in other countries. Cultural as well as legal
differences and peculiarities, which may be typical for some countries but atypical for others, can only be
assessed by separate country specific research. The questionnaire from this project may serve as input
for a national survey. The present results for Germany provide a solid base for other European countries,
to design, develop and implement appropriate risk communication on driving under the influence of drugs
or alcohol for the target group of 15 to 24 year olds.
7
Preliminary remarks
According to Annex I of the core contract Task 7.4 had two major objectives. The first one was to
investigate and evaluate the implementation of practice guidelines and protocols for medical and
pharmaceutical care after training a group of general practitioners, medical specialists and community
pharmacists in several countries. This part has been intensively dealt with in Deliverables 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
The second objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication to patients, and drug
consumers regarding psychoactive substances affecting driving performance.
Task 7.4 as described in the Annex I to the Core Contract of DRUID project
The implementation of practice guidelines and protocols for medical and pharmaceutical care will
be investigated after training a group of general practitioners, medical specialists and community
pharmacists in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Germany with and without the application of
new technologies such as computerised protocols in daily practice. Collaboration with researchers
in those countries can provide insight in differences depending upon existing conditions with
respect to the application of ICT and working relationships of the different professionals in these
countries.
The outcomes of Task 7.3 „Booklets“ will offer opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness
of risk communication to patients and drug consumers regarding psychoactive substances
affecting driving performance by using the categorisation system developed in Task 4.2
“Consensus“. By investigating the patient satisfaction in all practices the outcomes of the
implementation can be further defined.
Whereas the evaluation of risk communication to patients could be combined with the evaluation of
practice guidelines, the risk communication to drug users was not appropriately addressed in the original
proposal. Therefore the DRUID partners decided in accordance with the European Commission to shift
resources within Task 7.4 and to conduct an additional task in the form of an expert workshop and an indepth analysis of the conditions for successful risk communication of DRUID outcomes for young drivers.
Results of DRUID epidemiological studies showed that young drivers are particularly exposed to the risk
of driving under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol (D 2.2.3). For example, consuming of some illicit
drugs like cannabis is more prevalent in the young population (D 2.2.3). Another general finding was that
alcohol use in traffic is already risky at low BAC levels, especially for younger drivers who have less
driving experience than older drivers (D 2.2.3). On account to the fact, that young drivers are particularly
vulnerable to the hazardous effects of DUI, the focus in this deliverable was shifted from “drug
consumers” to “young drivers”.
The additional Deliverable 7.4.3 puts a focus on risk communication of DRUID outcomes to young
people, including the development of preventive strategies to reach and properly inform young traffic
participants and young drug users about the risks of drug-driving.
8
1 Introduction
Driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines remains a key risk factor in road safety
across Europe. Young drivers aged 18 to 24 years are particularly likely to be involved in driving under
the influence of such agents, and a substantial portion of traffic accidents with severe injuries and
fatalities in this age group is causally related to consumption of alcohol, drugs and/or medicines. Current
research in the EU-funded project “DRUID” (www.druid-project.org), which is coordinated by the Federal
Highway Research Institute (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany), has highlighted the threat to road safety that
originates in (young) drivers using one or more substances prior to or during steering a vehicle. While the
severe negative impact of alcohol consumption on driving performance are well-established (e.g., Ogden
& Moskowitz, 2004), the picture on the impact of drugs and medicines is complicated, because (A) there
is an abundance of agents both in drugs and medicines available, which causes huge variance in the
direction and strength of effects on different dimensions of driving performance (e.g., attention, tendency
towards risk-taking), and (B) the interaction effects of combined use of two or more agents have been
investigated only to small extents, due to the vast number of possible agent combinations (Berghaus,
Sticht & Grellner, 2010; Schnabel, Hargutt & Krüger, 2010). One common understanding in risk
assessment is that if drivers consume relevant amounts of alcohol jointly with (virtually) any drug or
medicine, particularly severe impairments of driving capabilities are likely to occur.
Against this background, the popularity of alcohol and soft drugs like marihuana especially among young
people is of special interest for research and prevention concerning traffic accidents. Specifically, young
people’s awareness of risks in (combined) use of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines prior to steering a car,
and their intentions to engage in or to avoid such risky driving behaviour, emerge as relevant domains for
both developing and applying effective means of improving safety on the roads. Therefore, the EU project
DRUID is also dedicated to elaborating new and promising strategies for risk communication on the
alcohol/drugs/medicines issue for young drivers. The development of effective strategies is in need for
empirical foundations in the sense that young drivers and young people who are going to be drivers need
to be addressed as an audience of risk communication as early as possible. Learning more about the
topic-related knowledge, interests, behavioural intentions, and processing styles of young drivers and
prospective drivers is a key element in proceeding towards new strategies in road safety campaigns on
alcohol, drugs, and medicines.
Our social marketing approach to this Deliverable can be described as follows:
First, we investigated all results from DRUID and compiled them according to their relevance for the
target-group. In a second step, these results were then presented to and discussed by a group of experts,
consisting of communication experts, psychologists, social workers, police bodies and representatives
from road safety agencies and governmental institutions. Aim of the workshop was to develop
recommendations for appropriate media-based concepts of risk communication on the base of the DRUID
outcomes. The discussion covered issues like primary goals and objectives, characteristics of the target
group, channels and platforms of communication, content of messages, credible communicators and the
social context. The conclusions and recommendations of the expert round served as input for a
subsequent formative evaluation. The third step was, to analyze the effectiveness of the recommended
approaches in an in-depth analysis based on representative samples. With this task the Department of
Journalism and Communication Research (IJK) of the Hanover University of Music, Drama and Media
was commissioned as subcontractor.
The present report summarizes the recommendations of a DRUID expert workshop for appropriate
media-based concepts for risk communication of DRUID results to young drivers and drug consumers as
well as the findings from a survey conducted on base of the expert recommendations. Building on the
research progress achieved so far by the DRUID project partners, the mission of the evaluation study was
to explore the pre-conditions of successful risk communication about alcohol, drugs and medicines to
young drivers and prospective drivers. These pre-conditions were defined conceptually based on
professional standards in health and road safety communication campaigns (e.g., Fishbein & Capella,
2006) and tailored to the specific topics of driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines.
In co-operation with social marketing experts from the Federal Highway Research Institute, the survey
project addressed three domains of audience investigation in young and prospective drivers:
•
personal experiences with incidents of driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and/or
medicines, including related attitudes and self-perceptions (e.g., anticipations of resilience to alcohol
effects when on the road),
9
•
•
the knowledge and motivational base for processing risk communication messages on the DRUID
issue (e.g., problem awareness, general judgment of riskiness, interest in dedicated messages),
specific issues in media use and preferences for message contents (e.g., credible communicators)
and channels (e.g., social media).
Taken together, these three domains of research were intended to establish a solid empirical base for
developing effective strategies of DUI-related risk communication to young drivers and prospective
drivers. In terms of a social marketing approach findings should help to clarify, both how aware young
people are already about the implied risks of driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or
medicines and how interested they would be in being approached with risk-related communication. Given
the complex interaction of psychological-developmental and social forces that affect young people’s
behaviour, both concerning drug consumption and traffic participation, the idea of the study was to find
promising access points to involve young people in more reflection about the dangers of driving under the
influence of substances. These access points relate, for instance, to communication channels:
Interpersonal communication with parents, peers, or doctors may make a difference in young people’s
readiness to listen and in their awareness to health related media messages. Message dispersion
through social media may make risk communication particularly attractive to young drivers or create
especially high levels of reactance. Celebrity endorsement as a content strategy may work well or fail
completely, depending on who appears as public endorser. By drawing on previous work in health and
road safety communication, a broad examination of audience characteristics was synthesized into the
questionnaire of the current project about young and prospective drivers. The data collection was
conducted in June 2011 by the Allensbach Institute of Public Opinion Research, Germany.
Derived from the results of the expert workshop and the findings of the survey conclusions and
recommendations are given at the end of the report on how to exploit the results for future strategies of
risk and safety communication about driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines.
10
2 Expert Workshop on Risk Communication
2.1 Organization
In April 2011 the Federal Highway Institute Germany (BASt) invited experts from different areas to
discuss the results of the EU-project DRUID concerning young drivers and to derive strategies and
recommendations for appropriate media-based concepts for risk communication. The one-day workshop
took place at the premises of BASt at Bergisch Gladbach. The expertise among the invited participants
was widespread. Communication experts, psychologists, social workers, police bodies and
representatives from road safety agencies and governmental institutions contributed to the discussion
(Appendix A: List of participants).
The workshop itself consisted of two parts. First the target-group related results of DRUID were presented
to the participants. This was followed by a moderated discussion on certain issues and topics covering
important aspects of scientifically based risk communication to young drivers (Gelau & Pfafferott, 2009).
The relevance of certain DRUID results for the target group was addressed as well as efficient strategies
of communication, appropriate platforms and channels, the credibility of communicators, special
characteristics of the target group and of course the goals and objectives of risk communication. The
moderated discussion developed along the general question “With what aim is which message
communicated by whom to whom in which manner?”.
2.2 Presentation of target group related DRUID outcomes – Input
from other DRUID tasks
The results of DRUID deliverables of other Work-Packages were assessed and compiled under the
aspect of being in any way relevant for the target group of young drivers. Important input was found in
WP1 (results form experimental studies), WP 2 – (data on prevalence and risk) and WP 7 (information
materials for the general public and younger people). The key messages that were presented to the
group of experts are listed below.
2.2.1 Prevalence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances in drivers
In order to obtain a deeper insight into the use of psychoactive substances among drivers, roadside
surveys have been conducted in 13 European countries (BE, HU, PL, CZ, IT, PT, DK, LT, SE, ES, NL, FI,
NO) according to a unified study design. Due to legal regulations no roadside survey could be conducted
in Germany. From January 2007 until July 2009 almost 50 000 randomly selected drivers were tested.
The major findings are listed below. Unless otherwise noted all results are taken from D 2.2.3.
Alcohol
• Alcohol is still by far the most frequently detected psychoactive substance on European roads.
• On average across all participating European countries, alcohol (≥ 0.1 ‰) is used by 3.48 % of
the drivers, illicit drugs by 1.90 % of the drivers, medicinal drugs by 1.36 % of the drivers.
Alcohol-drug combinations are detected in only 0.37 % of the drivers.
• The average prevalence of alcohol decreases by blood alcohol concentration. The European
average for BAC ≥ 0.1 ‰ is 3.48 %, for BAC ≥ 0.5 ‰ the prevalence is 1.49 %, for BAC ≥
1.2 ‰ the European average is below 0.5 %. Hence only few drivers are driving under influence
of high blood alcohol concentrations.
• In all countries the prevalence for male drivers is higher than for female drivers. In most countries
the share of alcohol positive male drivers is highest for the older age groups (35-49; > 50).
• In general there are more drivers driving under influence of alcohol during night time hours than
during day time hours.
• Prevalence of alcohol varies between the participating countries. Alcohol is relatively frequently
detected in Southern European countries whereas the prevalence of alcohol is relatively low in
Eastern European countries.
Illicit drugs
• Amongst illicit drugs THC is the most frequently detected drug in traffic.
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The European mean prevalence for THC is 1.32 %. On average between 20 % and 30 % of THC
use was in combination with other psychoactive substances.
Across all countries most drivers positive on THC were under 35 years of age. There were more
male drivers tested positive on THC than female drivers. In most countries THC is prevalent at all
days of the week and during all hours of the day.
The average prevalence for cocaine in Europe is 0.42 %. Compared to BAC ≥ 0.5 ‰ (prevalence
= 1.49 %) this is very low.
Illicit opiates are barely prevalent on European roads (European average: 0.07 %).
The same applies to amphetamines. The average prevalence in Europe is 0.08 %. In general
amphetamines are mainly used by drivers under 35 years.
All in all illicit drugs were mainly detected among young mal drivers. They were detected during
all times of the day, mainly on weekends.
The prevalence of illicit drugs also differs between European countries. All in all illicit drugs are
relatively frequently detected in Southern European countries. The frequency of detection of illicit
drugs was relatively low in Eastern European countries.
Medicinal drugs
• Benzodiazepines were the most prevalent medicinal drug in traffic. The European mean is 0.9 %.
Compared to driving under influence of alcohol with BAC ≥ 0.5 ‰ (Prevalence = 1.49 %) this is
very low. Benzodiazepines are mainly not used in combination with other psychoactive
substances. They are most prevalent in older drivers (>50) and are mostly detected in female
drivers.
• The average use of medicinal opiates and opioids by drivers in Europe is 0.35 %
• Z-drugs (hypnotic medicinal drugs) are also not commonly detected in traffic (European mean:
0.12 %)
• Medicinal drugs were mainly detected among older female drivers during daytime hours.
• Prevalence rates also differ between participating countries. In general medicinal drugs were
more frequently detected in Northern European countries. Compared to the other European
regions the prevalence of medicinal drugs was lower in Eastern countries.
Multiple drug use
• The group ”alcohol-drug combinations” encloses drivers tested positive for alcohol (BAC ≥
0.1 ‰) and one or more other psychoactive substance in addition.
• The European average for alcohol-drug combinations is 0.37 % which is far below the average
value for driving under influence of alcohol above the legal limit (BAC ≥ 0.5 ‰, prevalence = 1.49
%).
• The group ”drug-drug combinations” consist of combinations of two or more psychoactive
substances other than alcohol.
• On the European average drug-drug combinations are detected in only 0.39 % of the drivers
which is, compared to alcohol above the legal limit, very low.
• The most commonly used drugs in combination with alcohol are THC, cocaine and
benzodiazepines.
2.2.2 The risk of alcohol and illicit drugs for road safety
Information taken from deliverables (see reference in each section)
•
•
•
Among injured and killed drivers, alcohol (BAC ≥ 0.1 ‰) is the most prevalent drug with a
prevalence rate of 18-43 % for the seriously injured drivers and of 19-45 % for the killed drivers.
Among the seriously injured drivers most positives had a blood alcohol concentration above the legal
limit (≥ 0.5 ‰). Their mean BAC was 1.59 ‰. The same applies to killed drivers. Most of them had
blood alcohol concentration ≥ 0.5 ‰, too. The majority of drugs appear to be used in combination
with other psychoactive substances. The prevalences differ between European countries (D
2.2.5).
For all age groups, the prevalence is higher for men than for women (D 2.2.4, D 2.2.5, D 2.3.4).
In drivers involved in fatal accidents a high BAC level (above 1.2 ‰) was mainly detected among
young male drivers (D 2.3.2). An increased risk was associated with high BAC level, young age
and speed (D 2.3.3).
The risk for accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol is already increased for low
BAC levels. This holds especially true for young, inexperienced drivers (D 2.2.3).
12
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A French study evaluated the driver’s risk of being responsible for a fatal crash. Among car
drivers, positive cannabis detection is associated with doubled risk (odds ratio = 1.89) of accident
responsibility. Under influence of alcohol (≥ 0.1 ‰) the risk is 8 times higher (Odds ratio = 8.39)
which indicates a much higher risk increase by alcohol than by cannabis (D 2.3.2).
The risk of getting seriously injured in an accident increases with BAC ≥ 0.5 ‰. For BAC between
0.5-0.8 ‰ the risk is nearly 4 times higher (odds ratio = 3.64), with BAC 0.8-1.2 ‰ the risk is
nearly 13 times higher (odds ratio = 13.35).
The risk of getting seriously injured under influence of cannabis is more than doubled (odds ratio
= 2.41). But no clear relation between cannabis concentration and odds ratio could have been
drawn. Overall the risk is lower than that caused by alcohol above the legal limit (D 2.3.5).
A meta-analysis covering published experimental studies revealed that the impairment caused by
3.7ng/ml THC (range 3.1 to 4.5) is equal to that caused by 0.5 ‰ BAC.
Driving under influence of a combination of alcohol and other drugs or a combination of different
drugs is significantly more risky than driving under influence of a single substance. The odds
ratios were 47.7 for the alcohol-drug combinations and 35.0 for the drug-drug combinations which
is far above the values for alcohol above the legal limit. The results of data on drivers killed in
accidents go in line with these findings. Driving under influence of higher concentrations of
alcohol increases the risk of getting killed in an accident. The highest risk is caused when alcohol
is combined with other drugs (D 2.3.5). The risks of alcohol and cannabis for causing accidents
are independent and thus multiply for combined use (D 2.3.2).
There is a subjective feeling of being intoxicated by alcohol already at very low BACs. Complex
tasks like driving are more affected by alcohol than simple tasks, especially at low BACs. (D
1.1.2a).
The odds ratios of responsibility for amphetamines, cocaine and opiates are not significantly
different from 1 which indicates that the probability of being responsible for a fatal crash is not
increased (D 2.3.2).
MDMA (25, 50 and 100mg) and dexamphetamine (10, 40mg) did not impair performance in a
standardized on-road test of driving performance (SDLP; a measure of lane-keeping
performance). But the stimulating effects of MDMA and amphetamines are not sufficient to
overcome or compensate driving impairments produced by concomitant alcohol use or sleep
deprivation (D 1.2.1). A meta-analysis of experimental studies revealed that there are more
findings of performance improvements than of performance impairments (D 1.1.2b) under
influence of stimulating drugs. But consumers of stimulating drugs may not be aware of post
acute fatigue and thus need to be educated about this effect and its possible implications on
driving safety (D 1.2.1).
Sleep deprivation itself causes the same degree of impairing effects as the influence of 0.8 ‰
BAC (D 1.2.1).
2.2.3 Recent country specific data from Germany
In a prevalence study conducted in Germany a different methodological approach was used (D 2.2.2). By
a questionnaire, installed on smart phones 200 drug users and 100 controls were queried for four weeks
about their driving and drug consumption behaviour.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In general, drug users are more mobile at night compared to non-users, who are more mobile at
usual rush-hour times (D 2.2.2)
In rural areas and bigger cities the probability of driving under influence rises compared to smaller
cities. (D 2.2.2)
Excessive substance users especially commit most substance-positive drives and have higher
substance blood levels while driving compared to moderate or heavy drug users. (D 2.2.2)
Compared to controls, drug users consume alcohol more frequently and in higher doses. At the
same time they drive more than twice as often under the influence of alcohol than controls. (D
2.2.2)
High consumption frequency proved to be a striking predictor for frequent drug driving and highly
impaired driving in general (D 2.2.2)
Moderate substance users judge their intoxication more realistically and can be described as
being responsible-minded concerning drugs in traffic (D 2.2.2)
The results suggest that female fellow passengers lower the probability of drives under influence,
especially when the driver is male (D 2.2.2)
13
•
•
The most prevalent drug found while driving was again cannabis (D 2.2.2).
The life-time prevalence of driving under the influence of alcohol compared to cannabis in the
group of 18 to 24 year old is about 3:1 (27.8 % to 9.8 %). Whereas the lifetime-prevalence of
driving under the influence of alcohol in the group of 25+ year olds increases considerably to
47.9 % it only moderately increases to 12.2 % for cannabis in this group (Holte, 2011). This
indicates that with growing age alcohol consumption becomes even more relevant compared to
cannabis.
2.2.4 Motives behind DUI/DUID
•
•
•
•
Drunk drivers often think that alcohol does not impair their performance (D 2.2.1).
Drug consumers believe that drugs may improve their driving (D 2.2.1).
Drivers, whose drunk-driving was related to problems with alcohol, argued that losing the license
did not stop them from driving and re-offending. Instead, it was the treatment program which had
helped them by providing a greater insight into their own problems (D 2.2.1).
Drug and alcohol re-offenders (recidivists) tend to be significantly younger at the first offence than
those who do not re-offend. Driver rehabilitation participation should be mandatory for high-risk
offenders, repeat offenders and young (novice) drivers to address the problem in an early stage
(D 5.1.1).
2.2.5 General conclusions
•
•
•
•
Consumption of alcohol (> 0.5 ‰), alone or in combination with other psychoactive substances,
implies the highest risk for road transport compared to other psychoactive substances.
The risk of DUI/DUID is disproportionately high for young, male drivers (18-34 year olds). The risk
is the higher, the younger the drivers are.
In about half of the accidents related to drug-consumption there was concomitant consumption of
alcohol. The other half of the accidents was related to drug consume only. Very often one of the
drugs was cannabis alone or combined with other drugs.
Compared to the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of
drugs plays a minor role. The risk of being responsible for an accident while driving under the
influence of alcohol is three times higher than that of drugs.
14
2.3 Expert-discussion of the results and recommendations of the
workshop
Subsequent the presentation the DRUID results were discussed by a group of 16 experts. Listed below
are the compiled recommendations.
2.3.1 Recommendations on goals and objectives
Main objective of course is to reduce the number of accidents caused by young drivers under the
influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines. This primary objective may be reached indirectly by the help of
secondary goals. One of these goals should be to raise awareness of relevance and to sensitize the
target group for the risks combined with driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The sensitisation
should be initiated by simple and easily to comprehend messages.
Even if the primary goal is to reduce accidents, this agenda alone might be too abstract. A more concrete
objective could be, to stop young people in advance from driving under the influence of alcohol and/or
drugs at all. The goal should be to strengthen a solid attitude towards DUI and a reasonable handling of
psychoactive substances. This could be reached by fostering the competence of the young adolescents.
Attitude changes to DUI should be addressed by means of road safety issues, and not indirectly by
means of general drug education.
To treat driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs separately is regarded as arbitrary, as both
substances affect the same target group (high sensation seekers). The only difference is the lower
inhibition threshold for driving under the influence of alcohol, but the barrier for DUI might be lower for
alcohol.
2.3.2 Recommendations on target group of communication
It is strongly recommended, to extend the target group from 18 to 24 year olds to 15 to 24 year olds. The
education should begin already before obtaining a driving license. For many young people (15 to 18 year
olds) the subject of driving is very important. Starting points for the discussion could be the personal
relevance of mobility, driving license, alcohol/drugs and DUI. Early education could be a good opportunity
to influence the formation of societal standards and values and to guide the first steps into “automotive
mobility”.
It is important to identify relevant subgroups. This might be done by investigating their lifestyles, styles of
communication and media use. Certain combinations of characteristics are responsible for different risk
and driving profiles. After identification it should be evaluated, how to address which subgroup with which
message.
Young people often detach themselves early from the attitudes of their parents and tend to adopt the
attitudes of their peers or spread by the media. To develop approaches for recruiting peers as mediators
(e.g. fellow passenger) might be promising.
Three major target groups were identified by the expert round. First, the target group of young
adolescents prior to obtaining a driving license. This group should be appropriately prepared. Second, the
group of young drivers, who already experienced DUI. They should be accompanied and supported by
appropriate advice. And third, non-media socialising agencies (e.g. school, sport-clubs, family) that may
support the communication by assuring desired behaviour.
2.3.3 Recommendations on communication strategies and messages
For particularly endangered subgroups, for instance the important subgroup of hardcore consumers,
special preventive measures are preferred by the experts. Personal communication is the key to reach
these subgroups. The approach to recruit peers is generally favoured in personal communication. It is
important for this approach, to identify relevant communicators like gatekeepers or peers.
15
To spread general preventive measures via mass media communication are still an appropriate way to
reach young people in general. Since inflationary measures will lead to sensory overload, the advice is,
not to bother the target group with tons of DVDs, spots, information materials etc. Moreover, road safety
alone is not a sexy issue. Short, concise messages in a highly professional design have the highest
chances of success. The messages should generally be embedded in relevant contexts related to the
actual real life situations of the young adolescents. Mass media are always needed as flanking measures,
e.g. for penetrating a certain message. Multiple channels of communication may be used in combination
(personal communication, mass media, social networks etc.).
Big events like rock-concerts, parades or youth days might be the ideal platform with respect to a
particular lifestyle group. The measures must be specially designed for a certain event, since different
events usually have different target groups.
Modern social networks (like facebook or twitter) may provide good opportunity to influence the target
group. Yet, if not established appropriately there is a considerable risk of not being taken seriously by the
target group. Moreover, appropriate attention will not be gained so easily. A framework should be
established, in which the young people are given the opportunity to learn from each other. The options
and their acceptance of making use of social platforms should be evaluated beforehand by means of a
representative sample of the target group.
Mass media communication might address the loss of social acceptance caused by DUI as a central
theme, as this could provide a strong motive for behavioural changes.
2.3.4 Recommendations on communicators
The credibility of peers is again highly valued by the experts.
Young people that already had own DUI experiences may have a high authenticity, even if their effect as
peers may be double edged (“Did not have any problems after ten beers”).
The opportunities provided by institutional education (school, police, driving schools) should be used. To
give advice in life issues beyond the curriculum belongs to the primary tasks of schools. It is important, to
strike new paths for communication. Road safety education could for instance take place in driving
schools at special training events for certain risky situations.
Even if the importance of the police as communicators has decreased over the last years, they should
definitely be highly involved in road safety education, since their reputation is still very high.
2.3.5 Synopsis - Recommendations on feasible concepts
Young people (ages 15 up) should be included in the communication of DUI issues.
A combination of different strategies seems most promising:
Special, personal approaches for certain subgroups (subgroups based on lifestyles) together with
flanking, very professional designed general prevention approaches via mass media.
The different target groups should be addressed separately:
- the target group of young adolescents prior to obtaining a driving license. This group should
be appropriately prepared.
- the group of young drivers, who already experienced DUI. They should be accompanied and
supported by appropriate advice.
- non-media socialising agencies (e.g. school, sport clubs) that may support the
communication by assuring desired behaviour
To involve peer groups in the communication process is most promising.
The opportunities given by social platforms should be investigated.
Based of the results of DRUID and the expert recommendations a formative evaluation study was
commissioned to the Department of Journalism and Communication Research (IJK), Hannover, who
conducted a survey in form of a representative sampling (N=800 young people; 15 to 24 year olds). The
16
comprehensive questionnaire of this survey gathered information on driving biography, alcohol and drug
consumption data and attitudes towards DUI issues. The design of the questionnaire incorporated the
recommendations of the expert workshop.
17
3 Survey on risk communication
3.1 Aims
In order to develop effective strategies for risk communication based on the results of DRUID and the
recommendations given by the expert workshop (DRUID, April 2011) there is need for empirical
foundations in the sense that young drivers and young people, who are going to be drivers, need to be
addressed as an audience of risk communication as early as possible. Learning more about the topicrelated knowledge, interests, behavioural intentions, and processing styles of young drivers and
prospective drivers is a key element in proceeding towards new strategies in road safety campaigns on
alcohol, drugs, and medicines (Christ, Delhomme et al. 1999).
3.2 Method
3.2.1 Research design
To elaborate effective strategies for risk communication on the alcohol, drugs and medicines issue for
young and prospective drivers, it is indispensable first to gain a fundamental understanding of their
experiences with and their attitudes towards incidents of driving under the influence of these substances.
Furthermore, in order to develop adequate and targeting messages and to choose best fitting
communication channels, the target group’s dispositions and motivations to deal with this subject and
people’s openness to communicate about the topic need to be explored. Even if risky driving behaviour
does not occur before young people have obtained their driving licenses, relevant intentions and
dispositions towards road safety and driving behaviours develop in advance – at the latest, when young
people are planning to attend a driving school. Thus, preventive risk communication should not only
address those who are already traffic participants as drivers, but also prospective drivers who
predominantly take part in road transport as fellow passengers so far.
To clarify the preconditions of successful risk communication about alcohol, drugs, and medicines among
these two target groups, a representative survey study was realized. The data collection was conducted
by the Allensbach Institute of Public Opinion Research, Germany. Interviewees were selected by quota
sampling on the basis of the demographic structure of the population validated by the Federal Statistical
Office. Considering the normal statistical probability of error to the amount of 3 percentage points, results
can be generalized for the German population aged 15 to 24 years.
In June 2011, 800 young and prospective drivers aged 15 to 24 years were interviewed face-to-face at
the interviewees' homes. Particularly with regard to the personal, moral and legal implications of the
survey issue, the interview requires a trustful atmosphere. Moreover, the questionnaire is quite long and
complex and it contains the presentation of experimental stimulus material. Against this background –
although it is comparatively time-consuming and expensive – for the specific purpose of this study this
mode of data collection is superior to paper-pencil, telephone interviews, or online instruments. In order to
make the interviews interesting and to keep the participants’ attention from start to finish, different wellproven and reliable conversation techniques operating with visualizations and demanding a high level of
action from the respondents were integrated.
Nevertheless, asking for the personal drinking behaviour, drug use and the interviewees’ potential driving
behaviour under the influence of alcohol or drugs in face-to-face situations is supposed to evoke higher
levels of social desirability than other modes of data collection do. Thus, in order to reduce the
respondents’ tendency to reply in a manner that is viewed favourable by others, the participants were
asked to complete a short standardized questionnaire in written form which ensured anonymity in the end
of the interview.
Altogether, the face-to-face interviews comprised 35 questions on beliefs, attitudes and experiences in
connection with DUI issues and nine questions about demographics and socioeconomics. Finally, five
questions concerning the consumption of alcohol or drugs and driving behaviour under the influence of
these substances were answered in written form. Participants sealed the filled-in print questionnaire
themselves in an envelope that was not opened by the interviewer but shipped to the Allensbach institute.
The original questionnaire in German and an English translation are located in the appendix to this report.
For economical reasons a few questions were asked in different, slightly modified versions to subsamples. This was done only in cases, when no representative calculation of the results was intended.
18
3.2.2 Survey questions
In order to explore the preconditions of successful DUI-related risk communication, the questionnaire was
built on the basis of three major research dimensions. The main aspects used to measure each of these
domains are listed below.
1. Personal attitudes, self-perceptions and experiences with incidents of driving under the influence of
drugs, alcohol and/or medicines
The young people's likelihood towards driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs or medicines (DRUID)
was modelled on the basis of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (e.g., Fishbein & Capella, 2006). This
well-established theoretical framework predicts health related behaviour by explaining the relations
among behavioural beliefs and attitudes, normative beliefs, perceived behaviour controls and behavioural
intentions. It is one of the most successful theories in health communication research. The main
components of the theory were adjusted and specified to DUI issues. In some cases, driving under the
influence of alcohol (‘drink-driving’) and driving under the influence of drugs or medicines (‘drug-driving’)
was explicitly differentiated, in other cases, DUI-tendencies were measured in general. The following
aspects were addressed by survey questions:
• Perceptions and attitudes towards driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs: general acceptance
of DUI behaviours, measured by one item for ‘drink-driving’ and one item for ‘drug-driving’; intensity of
thoughts (not at all vs. few vs. a lot) about DUI among young people in general (two items); agreement
with eight statements about typical situations and options of behaviour in DUI contexts, including riskawareness; the direction of the statements was varied by phrasing both with the tendency of risky
behaviour (e.g., "For some parties, alcohol is simply essential, even if one has to drive a car later on")
and with the affinity to responsible behaviours (e.g., "Drinking alcohol or taking drugs and then driving
a car – no way!")
• Social norms: People build and change their attitudes not only individually, but they also adjust them
to their social environment. Thus, the respondents’ perception of DUI-related attitudes and behaviours
among their friends and in their peer group was measured by agreement with three statements.
• Perceived behavioural control: Whether people develop behavioural intentions also depends on the
extent to which they believe themselves to be able to perform the behaviour in question. Thus,
perceived self-efficacy in driving situations under the influence of alcohol and painkillers and selfperceptions referring to the ability to renounce alcohol and drugs when driving a car was measured by
three items.
• Intentions: According to the theory of planned behaviour, the formation of an intention to perform
behaviour is the key process that precedes and drives behaviour implementation. Thus, selfestimation of the respondents’ future behaviour in DUI-relevant situations (e.g. "If a party comes up, I’ll
make a plan in advance how to get home safely.") was measured by three statements.
• Behaviour: Young people who have already experienced to drive a car under the influence of drugs
and/or alcohol once or even several times will probably show different attitudes than those who never
did. For planning risk communication, it is therefore imperative to assess participants’ prior experience
with drunk-driving and drug-driving. Two questions in the self-administered print questionnaire were
used to identify people with prior personal involvement in DUI behaviours.
• Experiences and attitudes towards DUI as a fellow passenger: Young people can experience driving
situations under the influence of drugs or alcohol both as drivers and as fellow passengers. From
these two scenarios, different requirements for risk communication result. To reach also those with
risk communication messages who are not willing to think about their own risk behaviour, it may be a
successful strategy to address them indirectly via their fellow passengers. Thus, fellow passengers
were treated as a further relevant reference group. Participants were asked if they had ever
experienced DUI situations in the role of fellow passengers once or even several times (two items).
Additionally their agreement with two statements about one’s responsibility and about their own
behavioural intentions in the role as fellow passengers was measured.
2. Interest and engagement in communication about DUI topics
The effectiveness of risk communication strategies depends on the target audience’s knowledge base
and their motivation to process information about the issue in question. Regarding to the sensitivity and
attention towards risk communication, those people who are already interested and engaged in the DUI
19
issue will probably differ from those who are indifferent or even show reactance. Thus, the risk
communication strategy needs to be adjusted to the different levels of openness towards risk
communication messages.
Participants of the survey were requested to judge, how they would decide in specific communication
situations in the context of DUI. They were asked a) about their interest in media information on DUI
issues and b) about their readiness to support a communication campaign actively. Furthermore,
participants responded on whether they had noticed the campaign ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’) in the
past.
3. Specific issues in media use and preferences for message contents
In order to identify suitable communication channels and message contexts for risk communication and to
be able to design appropriate messages for different reference groups within the target audience, it is
important to know the people’s media use and their communication preferences in detail. Thus, the
amount of general media use was measured, followed by an in-depth-assessment of online
communication, particularly with regard to Social Network Sites (habits of usage, preferences for different
features and topics). This emphasis was chosen to meet the mainstream communication routines of the
young target audience (e.g. Anderson, 2011; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009).
Moreover, the success of single risk communication messages depends on the credibility of sources and
communicators. To identify possible testimonials for media campaigns and suitable representatives or
peers for DUI-related interpersonal risk communication strategies, the credibility a) of communicators in
the media and b) of people in the respondents’ social environment was measured. Media strategies
comprising celebrities should ensure that the prominent person ‘fits’ to the topic of the campaign and to
the target audience’s lifestyle, interests as well as television, film, fashion or music preferences. With
regard to the DUI issues, the credibility and perceived appropriateness of a celebrity might particularly
depend on his or her affinity to drugs or alcohol. Thus, an experimental element was integrated into the
survey. Each participant was requested to evaluate the tenor of one fictitious DUI-related billboard. Four
versions were produced, which showed either a male or female celebrity promoting not to drive under the
combined influence of alcohol or drugs. In each case, one of the two is known to have an issue with
alcohol and/or drug consumption (musicians Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse). The other one or is
considered to stay clear of drug use or has not been involved into drug-related scandals in the public
sphere so far (musician Lena Meyer-Landruth and soccer player Philipp Lahm).
Much to the author’s regret, this survey was planned and carried out long before Amy Winehouse’s death.
With all due respect we decided to include the results in this report for scientific purpose. It is by no
means intended to offend anybody nor to hurt the remembrance of Mrs. Winehouse.
Not for public
dissemination
Fig. 1: Fictitious DUI-related billboards
20
4.
Statistics and further relevant determining factors
In addition to standard demographic and socioeconomic information, the respondents’ habits of alcohol,
drugs and medicines consumptions were assessed; related questions were presented in the selfadministered, confidential print part of the survey. Furthermore, characteristics of the traffic participants’
driving experiences, practices and attitudes, their ownership of different types of driver’s licenses for cars
and/or motorcycles or mopeds were gathered in order to capture the general underlying conditions of
traffic participation.
3.2.3 Strategy of analysis
Risk communication aims at evoking attention and raising the probability that people start reflecting their
own attitudes and risk behaviours. Many communication campaigns fail, because messages and
communication channels do not meet the target audience’s dispositions and experiences with the subject
matter and their routines and communication preferences in everyday life appropriately. Thus, a precise
definition of the main target groups is essential before a communication strategy can be developed (e.g.
Bonfadelli & Friemel, 2010).
Among young adults and their tendency to drive a car even under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
significant differences can be expected, a) regarding to gender and b) regarding to the actual driving
behaviour – respectively to the fact whether they have a regular driver’s license or not. The latter is
strongly correlated to age (i.e., being younger versus older than 18 years). Gender has already been
found a relevant predictor of risky behaviours both in the context of road safety and of risky health
behaviour (e.g. Nell, 2002). Therefore, it is important to find out, how far males and females deviate from
one another in the DUI issues. Furthermore, it is expectable that those who do not have a driver’s license
yet and mostly take part in road transport as fellow passengers change their minds in some respects
when they become drivers themselves.
Taken these two dimensions together, the analysis of behavioural dispositions of young people in the DUI
issues is guided by the comparison of four reference groups throughout the report: males and females,
drivers and prospective drivers. Drivers were defined by ownership of a ‘normal’ driver’s license for
people aged 18 or older, regardless whether they drive regularly or a certain amount of kilometres a year.
Participants defined as ‘prospective drivers’ do not have this license (yet). Among those, some are
already attending a driving school or have a ‘graduated license’ (it allows receiving the driver’s license at
the age of 17 but permits driving only with adult guiding until the 18th birthday); others do not own the
driver’s license for different reasons. Motorcyclists were also identified among the participants of the
survey. But as it is not possible to delineate them distinctly from car drivers who also are allowed to ride a
moped or motor scooter, this group is analyzed separately and results are revealed only for specific
matters. Fellow passengers were identified as an additional relevant target group. Their experiences and
perceptions were therefore analyzed in a special chapter.
Chapter 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 describe the similarities and differences of these reference groups in detail with
regard to their dispositions and behaviours in DUI matters. In chapter 3.4.4 the preconditions for
appropriate risk communication are explored by analyzing the respondents’ media use and their
preferences for different channels and message contents. In order to explore the preconditions of
successful risk communication about alcohol, drugs and medicines to young drivers and prospective
drivers on this basis, four reference groups were built according to the individuals' affinity to ‘drink-driving’
and/or ‘drug-driving’. These groups are finally compared with regard to their openness and their readiness
towards selected DUI-related messages and communication channels.
Only basic, statistic methods (T-test, analysis of variance) were applied in this report.
21
3.3 Sample
3.3.1 Demographic & socioeconomic data
The demographic and socioeconomic structure of the sample is shown in Tab. 1. The following
descriptive analysis (see next chapter) focuses age, gender and education as relevant criterion variables
for the description of DUI-relevant attitudes and behaviours.
With 41.5 % the 18-21 year olds built the largest group, followed by the 22-24 year olds (31.9 %) and the
15-17 year olds (26.6 %). The distribution of males and females equalled approximately (51.1 % males,
48.9 % females). 68.2 % of the young people in total still live in their parents’ household.
Param eter
Value
15-17
%
(n=790)
26,6
Age
18-21
41,5
22-24
31,9
male
51,1
female
48,9
low
23,4
Gender
Education level
Employment
Individual income
average
36,6
high
40,0
employed
29,4
in vocational training
17,7
unemployed
4,7
housew ife/househusband
0,3
pupil
27,5
student
16,8
no occupation
3,1
less than 500 Euro
24,9
500 to 999 Euro
27,8
1.000 to 1.499 Euro
15,3
1.500 to 1.999 Euro
4,7
2.000 to 2.499 Euro
0,6
no income
20,7
no answ er
5,9
1 person
14,9
2 persons
18,3
Size of household 3 persons
25,5
4 persons
26,6
5 or more than 5 persons
14,7
Living in parents'
household
Character of
residential area
Tab. 1: Sample statistics (n=790)
yes
68,2
no
31,5
no answ er
0,3
urban
small and medium tow ns
in conurbation
small and medium tow ns
in sparsely populated area
rural area near big or
medium tow n
27,5
rural area near small tow n
14,3
not specified
1,7
14,8
18,4
23,2
22
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Descriptive analysis
3.4.1.1
Consumption of drugs
Soft drugs like hashish and marijuana are rather common among adolescents. Nearly 40 percent of all
respondents state that they have taken these kinds of drugs at least once, 18 percent have already
consumed them several times or do this regularly. In comparison to this, synthetic drugs (i.e., ecstasy
(XTC) or speed) and hard drugs (i.e., LSD, cocaine, heroin, or crack) as well as strong soporifics or
tranquilizers are much less prevalently consumed (see fig. 2.A).
Although these questions touch very personal matters and one would expect a high degree of reactance
among respondents, the share of missing answers was extremely low (between 1.5 % and 2.6 %).
With regard to the higher scope of soft drugs consumption among young adults, figures 2.B to 2.D
deepen consumption of hashish and marijuana in relevant demographic subgroups. For a considerable
part of the young people, the attainment of full age seems to remain a relevant barrier for trying hashish
or marijuana (see fig. 2.C).
Frequency of Drug and Medicines
Consumption Overall
%
100
2
7
5
12
18
4
6
80
20
60
91
90
83
40
62
20
0
hard drugs synthetic soft drugs strong
(n=770)
drugs
(n=777) soporifics or
(n=772)
tranquilizers
(n=773)
never
once
several times
Fig. 2.A: Frequency of drug and medicines consumption
Fig. 2.B: Consumption of cannabis: differences by gender
23
But overall, young people do not show high acceptance for drug consumption in general. Measured on a
10-point scale the average agreement was 2.6 (see fig. 5.D). Corresponding to their consuming
behaviour of soft drugs, men and women differ from each other quite considerably: Women are
comparatively much more sceptical towards drug consumption (2.3 versus 2.6 in average).
With regard to education, there is no linear relationship between the educational level and consumption of
soft drugs provable: A low educational level is associated with a comparatively high level of consumption
(nearly half of these people have at least tried once). But highly educated young adults on the other hand
take hashish and marijuana significantly more often than those who only have a secondary school
certification (see fig. 2.D).
Fig. 2.C: Consumption of cannabis: differences by age
Fig. 2.D: Consumption of cannabis:
differences by education
24
3.4.1.2
Consumption of alcohol
Figures 3.B to 3.D reveal that male and full aged participants of this survey with a low educational level
drink alcohol more often and more regularly than underaged, women of an average educational level do.
While 18 to 24 year-old adults show a rather homogenous drinking behaviour on a rather high level, the
younger ones state that they behave more restrainedly according to their alcohol consumption: 22 % of
the 15 to 17 year-old adults state not to drink alcohol at all. They differ quite obviously from the 18 to 24
year- old ones with only 6 % beeing completely abstinent..
Perhaps due to the fact that high-proof alcohol like liquor or longdrinks is prohibited for people younger
than 18, beer is the most preferred alcoholic beverage among the respondents. A typical night at the
weekend, young adults drink three beers. Only 1.5 glasses of liquor and longdrinks are consumed. Wine
obviously is not prefered by this young target group (see fig. 3.A).
3.4.1.3
Consumption of medicines
Consumption of medicines is only of minor importance for the target group of young and prospective
drivers. In this report a systematically analysis of these data was not foreseen. The main focus of analysis
was put on consumption of drugs and alcohol.
Fig. 3.A: Amount of alcohol consumption per night
25
Frequency of Alcohol Consumption: Differences by Gender
%
40
men
(n=404)
29
30
27
27
women
(n=386)
25
22
17
20
13
13
12
8
10
6
0
0
daily,
almost daily
2-3 times a week
once
a week
2-3 times a month
less often
never
Question: A lot of people like alcohol, others do not mind about it. How about you? How often do you
drink alcohol?
Fig. 3.B: Frequency of alcohol consumption: gender differences
Frequency of Alcohol Consumption: Differences by Age
%
40
29
30
25
23
15-17 years
(n=210)
29
22
18-21 years
(n=328)
24
21
20
20
22-24 years
(252)
22
20
18
13
15
10
4
1
6
4
6
0
daily,
almost daily
2-3 times
a week
once
a week
2-3 times
a month
less often
never
Fig. 3.C: Frequency of alcohol consumption: differences by age
Frequency of Alcohol Consumption: Differences by Education
%
40
low
(n=185)
32
31
30
26
22
18
20
average
(n=289)
high
(n=316)
24
20
18
21
19
18
12
10
12
9
9
6
2
2
0
daily,…
2-3 times …
once…
Fig. 3.D: Frequency of alcohol consumption: differences by education
2-3 times …
less often
never
26
3.4.1.4
Young drivers and prospective drivers
More than half of the young adults aged 15 to 24 years (56.2 %, n=444) have a driver's license for cars.
Hence, 43.8 % (n=346) of young adults can be classified as ‘prospective drivers’.
Among the 15 to 17 year olds, who are not yet allowed to obtain a car driving license for people aged 18
and older, 4.3 % practice ‘accompanied driving’. This so called ‘graduated license’, allows them to receive
the driver’s license with 17, but until the 18th birthday driving is only permitted with adult company. At the
age of 18 to 21 years more than two thirds have obtained a ‘regular’ license, and among the 22 to 24
year-old adults the share of car drivers raises to 84 %. Women and men only differ slightly: 57.3 % of
women vs. 55.2 % of men are holding a license.
In contrast to the balanced proportions among men and women, the socioeconomic status seems to be
relevant. Figure 4.B shows that the educational level which is associated to the financial situation in a
family proves to be a rather strong predictor for the ownership of a driver's license.
Most of the owners of a driver's license (83.3 %, n=366) make use of it regularly. 84.2 % have their own
car or a car available that can be used whenever it is needed. On average, owners of a driver’s license
are used to steer a car for 2.9 years already. Against the background that a rather regular consumption of
alcohol can be observed (see chapter 3.4.1.2), situations requiring the decision to drive or not to drive
under the influence of alcohol might occur quite often.
But all in all, although most young people drive regularly, their overall experience is quite small: Nearly
three quarters of the car-drivers drive less than 10.000 km per year (see fig. 4.C).
Fig. 4.A: Driver's license for cars: differences by age
(p < .01)
%
30
Fig. 4.B:
Driver's license for cars: differences by education
(p < .01)
Kilometres of Car Driving per Year
28
21
22
20
16
10
7
5
1
0
less than
3.000 km
3.000 to
5.000 km
5.000 to
10.000 km
Fig. 4.C: Kilometres of car driving per year (n=346)
10.000 to
15.000 km
15.000 to
20.000 km
20.000 to
30.000 km
more than
30.000 km
27
Driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and medicines is not only problematic for car drivers
but also for motorcyclists. Nearly one quarter (23.4 %, n=183) of the 15 to 24 year-old people has a
motorcycle or moped/motor scooter license additionally or alternatively to a license for cars. Exactly half
of them ride a motorcycle or moped/motor scooter regularly.
Corresponding to the rather young target audience there are more moped/motor scooter riders (17.5 %,
n=138) than motorcycle riders (6.1 %, n=48) among the respondents of the survey (see fig. 4.E).
Furthermore both motorbikes and mopeds are clearly preferred by men (see fig. 4.D).
Motorcycle, Moped/Motor Scooter
Driver's License: Differences by Age
%
30
20
20
16
16
12
10
5
1
0
license for moped/motor
scooter
(n.s.)
15-17 years
(n=210)
Fig. 4.D: Driver's license for motorcycle,
moped/motor scooter: differences by gender
Fig. 4.F:
Attitudes towards traffic offenses:
differences by gender
license for motorcycle
(p<.01)
18-21 years
(n=328)
22-24 years
(n=252)
Fig. 4.E: Driver's license for motorcycle,
moped/motor scooter: differences by age
Fig. 4.G: Attitudes towards traffic offenses:
drivers vs. prospective drivers
28
With regard to traffic offenses men seem to be less restrictive than women (see fig. 4.F). They
substantially show a higher acceptance for incorrect behaviours in road transport. With regard to age, no
significant differences could be identified.
Car drivers and prospective drivers differ from each other depending on the type of deviant behaviour.
Already having gained experience in driving (and maybe the associated fun as well), drivers are less
restrictive towards driving too fast than prospective drivers are. On the other hand – probably showing
less affinity towards cars in general – the latter ones show less rigid attitudes towards hit and run (see fig.
4.G).
Overall, 84.6 % of the respondents have not been involved in an accident during the past three years.
This period is equivalent to the average duration of driving experience. 13 % (n=103) had one accident
and 2.4 % were already involved in more than one accident. Women are less frequently involved (see fig.
4.H). Those, who were involved in an accident once, were in most cases car drivers or fellow passengers
in a car. 17.9 % were involved with their bike and 14.9 % as motorcyclists. Obviously, accidents were not
caused by the young traffic participants more often than they were crash victims themselves: 37.9 % of
those who were involved in one accident were guilty, 19.4 % were complicit in the accident and 42.7 %
could not be blamed for it.
As one would expect, the data reveal that the older adults have been involved in an accident more often
than adolescents. Nearly one quarter of the 22 to 24 year-old people has experienced at least one
accident (see fig. 4.I).
Fig. 4.H: Accidents: differences by gender
Fig. 4.I: Accidents: differences by age
29
3.4.2 Experiences and attitudes towards DUI
3.4.2.1
Perceptions and attitudes
The young people’s general disposition towards driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and
medicines (DRUID) was measured by the extent of their permissiveness. Participants were asked how far
they regard ‘drink-driving’ (“driving a car although one has drunken too much”) and ‘drug-driving’ (“driving
a car although one has consumed drugs”) as acceptable. Compared to other types of deviant behaviours,
the acceptance of drink-driving is located on a rather low level; the problem of drinking and of drug-taking
is valued nearly equally by the young people (1.6 for drink-driving, and 1.5 for drug-driving on a 10-pointscale). This indicates that adolescents are quite sensitized for the problematic nature of DUI-behaviours
in general. It also implies that risk communication will be based on a substantial awareness of the
problem in the target audience.
Still, demographic characteristics give evidence to relevant differences within the target audience and
underline that different risk groups need to be taken into account.
Figure 5.A and 5.C show that male and low educated adolescents are significantly less cautious and
sceptical in their disposition towards drink-driving and drug-driving.
Acceptance of
Acceptance of Drink-Driving and
Drug-Driving: Differences by Gender
Drink-Driving and Drug-Driving:
mean
(10-pointscale)
mean
(10-pointscale)
Drivers vs. Prospective Drive
2
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,3
2
1,7
1,6
1,7
1
drink driving
(p < .05)
1,5
1,4
drivers
(n=400/398)
1,2
1
drink driving
(p < .01)
men
(n=400/398)
drug driving
(p < .01)
women
(n=383/384)
prospective drivers
(n=383/384)
Question: Please have look at the following things
that people sometimes do. Would you say that it is
o.k. in any case, or that one must not do this under
any circumstance, or somewhere in between?
(scale from 1 „must not do under any circumstance“
to 10 "o.k. in any case")
Fig. 5.B: Acceptance of drink-driving and
drug-driving: drivers vs. prospective drivers
total
(n=783/782)
(scale from 1 „must not do under any
circumstance“ to 10 "o.k. in any case")
drug driving
(p < .01)
mean
Acceptance of Drink-Driving and
Drug-Driving: Differences by
Education
(10-po intscale)
2
1,9
1,9
1,5
1,4
1,4
Fig. 5.A: Acceptance of drink-driving and drug-driving: differences
by gender
1,3
1
drink driving
(p < .01)
low
(n=181)
drug driving
(p < .01)
average
(n=285)
high
(n=316)
(scale from 1 „must not do under any circumstance“
to 10 "o.k. in any case")
Fig. 5.C: Acceptance of drink-driving and
drug-driving: differences by education
30
Fig. 5.D: Permissiveness of Deviant Behaviours (n=790)
As anticipated (see chapter 3.2.3), those who do not have a driver’s license yet and mostly take part in
road transport as fellow passengers differ from the actual drivers in their attitudes towards DUIbehaviours: Both for drug-driving and for drink-driving, prospective drivers show a little more acceptance
and therewith probably less problem awareness than drivers do (see fig. 5.B). Regarding to target
audience’s segmentation, this already gives a relevant hint for risk communication strategies.
To measure the individual involvement in the DUI-topic the participants were asked how much they think
about young people’s alcohol and drug consumption and about alcohol and drugs in road transport (see
fig. 5.E to fig. 5.H). 21 % of the interviewee’s state that they don’t think about young people’s drug and
alcohol consumption at all, on the other hand 14 % of them even seem to worry about it. Most of them are
involved on a medium level (62.2 % think about it a bit). Men and women do not differ in their
involvement, nor do drivers and prospective drivers (see fig. 5.E and 5.G).
Involvement in DUI-related topics is not that present to the young people as alcohol and drug
consumption among adolescents and young adults is. Only 9.1 % think about that topic a lot and more
than one third (34.5 %) don’t worry about it at all. No differences occur between men and women. But
figure 5.H shows that drivers are significantly more involved than prospective drivers. This result confirms
that prospective drivers seem to change their minds in some respects when they become drivers
themselves.
31
Fig. 5.E: Involvement in young people's alcohol and drug
consumption: differences by gender
Fig. 5.G: Involvement in young people's alcohol and drug
consumption: drivers vs. prospective drivers
Fig. 5.F: Involvement in alcohol and drug consumption in
road transport: differences by gender
Fig. 5.H: Involvement in alcohol and drug consumption in
road transport: drivers vs. prospective drivers
32
Perceptions and Attitudes towards DUI: Differences by Gender (means)
2,6
After one or two beers or a glass of wine, one surely can still
drive a car.**
3,1
2,0
For some parties, alcohol is simply essential, even if one
has to driver later on.**
2,5
1,7
After smoking a joint, one is still able to drive a car.**
2,0
1,5
If one takes certain drugs, one even feels particularly fit
behind the wheel.**
1,8
1,3
Drinking alcohol or taking drugs and then driving a car - no
way! (reversed scores, see note)**
1,7
1,2
It's fun driving a car, if you drunk a little.**
1,6
1,3
1,6
The danger of accidents will increase, if the driver drinks
alcohol or consumes drugs. (reversed scores, see note)**
1,3
I would never renounce alcohol or drugs, only because I
have to driver a car.*
women
men
1,5
1
2
3
4
5
Question: Here you find some statements others made in the context of alcohol, drugs and road traffic.
Please distribute the cards on this sheet, according to the extent to which you agree with each statement.
(scale from 1 “does not apply at all “ to 5 “applies to full extent “; n.s.: not significant; * p < .05; ** p < .01)
Note: All items are adjusted to the direction of DRUID tendencies: Therefore, the extent of agreement with this item had to
be reversed so that higher values now indicate a higher disagreement with this statement and therewith - analogously to
the other items - a higher acceptance of the corresponding DRUID-related behavior.
Fig. 5.I: Perceptions and attitudes towards DUI: differences by gender
Although the general acceptance of risk behaviours in DUI contexts is very low, young people accept
some DUI-related behaviour more than others; they obviously differentiate between different types of
DUI-behaviours. Comparatively positive attitudes towards drink-driving and drug-driving provide hints for
suitable key messages in risk communication strategies. Attitudes and perceptions were measured by
rating the agreement to DUI in some concrete situations on a 5-point-scale. Some items were phrased
with the tendency of risky behaviour and some expressed the affinity to responsible behaviours (see also
Appendix B and C). In fig. 5.I and 5.J all item values are adjusted to the direction of DUI tendencies, the
reversed ones are marked. Thus, higher values indicate higher agreements with DUI-behaviours. The
same holds true for the measurement of social norms, perceived behavioural controls and DUI intentions
(chapter 3.4.2.2 to 3.4.2.4). All statistically significant results are marked.
Obviously the perceptions and attitudes of the respondents vary rather widely. So, young people accept
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs to some extent and in some situations. Among
adolescents, driving after a manageable amount of alcohol, especially on the occasion of parties, is most
accepted.
Consistently to the general acceptance of drink-driving and drug-driving (see fig. 5.A and B), men and
prospective drivers show higher acceptance for DUI for every single item. These findings reinforce that
these two parameters are quite relevant with respect to segmentation of target groups in risk
communication.
Nearly any significant differences by age were found. This underlines that simple demographic
parameters are not always sufficient to predict attitudes towards DUI and that differences between drivers
and prospective drivers should also be taken into account.
33
Perceptions and Attitudes towards DUI: Drivers vs. Prospective Drivers
(means)
3,0
After one or two beers or a glass of wine, one surely can still
drive a car.*
2,8
2,5
For some parties, alcohol is simply essential, even if one
has to driver later on.**
2,0
2,1
After smoking a joint, one is still able to drive a car.**
1,7
1,8
If one takes certain drugs, one even feels particularly fit
behind the wheel.**
1,5
Drinking alcohol or taking drugs and then driving a car - no
way! (reversed scores, see note) (n.s.)
1,6
1,4
The danger of accidents will increase, if the driver drinks
alcohol or consumes drugs. (reversed scores, see note)*
1,5
1,4
I would never renounce alcohol or drugs, only because I
have to driver a car. (n.s.)
1,5
1,4
1,4
It's fun driving a car, if you drunk a little. (n.s.)
prospective drivers
drivers
1,4
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 5.J: Perceptions and attitudes towards DUI: drivers vs. prospective drivers
34
Social Norms: Differences by Gender (means)
2,9
I know some people who quite often drive a car when they
are drunk.**
3,3
2,2
A lot of friends of mine would drive a car, altough they had
quite some drinks or have taken drugs.**
2,5
1,7
Most of my friends say that alcohol in road traffic should be
avoided.(reversed scores, see note)**
women
men
2,0
1
2
3
4
5
Note: All items are adjusted to the direction of DRUID tendencies: Therefore, the extent of agreement with this item had
to be reversed so that higher values now indicate a higher disagreement with this statement and therewith - analogously
to the other items - a higher acceptance of the corresponding DRUID-related behavior.
Fig. 6.A: Social norms: differences by gender
Fig. 6.B: Social norms: drivers vs. prospective drivers
3.4.2.2
Social norms
Results on the young people’s perceived social norms (‘subjective norms’) are coherent to their
perceptions and attitudes. Again, men and prospective drivers show a higher DUI tendency, and there
were no significant differences between age groups. Figure 6.A and 6.B reveal the extent of the
perception of single social norms in a DUI context. Results suggest that people build and change their
attitudes towards DUI not only individually, but they also adjust them to their social environment.
35
Fig. 7.A: Perceived behavioural control: differences by gender
Fig. 7.B: Perceived behavioural control: drivers vs. prospective drivers
3.4.2.3
Perceived behavioural control
Whether people develop behavioural intentions also depends on the extent to which they believe
themselves to be able to perform the behaviour in question. The patterns found for perceived self-efficacy
in driving situations under the influence of alcohol or drugs and for self-perceptions referring to the ability
to renounce alcohol and drugs when driving a car correspond to the findings about attitudes and social
norms (see chapter 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2).
Even though on a rather low level of agreement overall, differences by gender remain very clear (see fig.
7.A). For prospective drivers it is rather difficult to perceive driving behaviours under certain conditions
without having any experience. This might explain the inconsistent findings evident in figure 7.B.
36
DUI-Intentions: Differences by Gender (means)
1,5
If a party comes up, I’ll make a plan in advance how to get
home safely. (reversed scores, see note)**
2,0
If I have to drive a car, I strictly keep away from drugs and
alcohol. (reversed scores, see note)**
1,3
If I drank too much alcohol or took drugs on a party, I would
rather leave my car and walk home instead or join a ride
with somebody. (reversed scores, see note)**
1,3
women
men
1,8
1,6
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 8.A: DUI-Intentions: differences by gender
DUI-Intentions: Drivers vs. Prospective Drivers (means)
1,8
If a party comes up, I’ll make a plan in advance how to get
home safely. (reversed scores, see note) (n.s.)
1,7
1,6
If I have to drive a car, I strictly keep away from drugs and
alcohol. (reversed scores, see note)*
1,5
If I drank too much alcohol or took drugs on a party, I would
rather leave my car and walk home instead or join a ride
with somebody. (reversed scores, see note)**
prospective drivers
drivers
1,6
1,4
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 8.B: DUI-Intentions: drivers vs. prospective drivers
3.4.2.4
DUI-intentions
Differences by gender and between drivers and prospective drivers remain consistent for DUI-intentions
as well, but on a lower level of agreement. This is consistent to other studies exploring perceptions of
deviant behaviours of others in comparison to one’s own behaviours or one’s own behavioural intentions:
Others are often supposed to behave less responsible than people admit for themselves.
3.4.2.5
DUI-behaviour
Three quarters of the young drivers state that they never drove a car although they had drunk too much
alcohol. Among women, it is only 14 % who ever did, while 37 % of the male respondents concede that
they did which is a significantly higher proportion (see fig. 9.A).
Drug-driving seems to be less common among young adults. Only eight percent of the participants of this
survey aged 18 and older concede having driven a car although they had taken any drugs before. Men
and women do not differ significantly here, but the tendency for men remains obvious (see fig. 9.B).
37
While no significant differences by education could be detected for the affinity to drink-driving, it is evident
for drug-driving: The lower the educational level is, the more likely are young adults to drive a car
although they had taken some drugs (see fig. 9.C).
Thus, overall the share of drink-drivers and drug-drivers among adolescents is manageable it remains
obvious that there is critical mass of those who tend to behave very risky in road transport and thus needs
to be addressed by communication rather individually.
Fig. 9.A: Drink-driving behaviour: differences by gender
Fig. 9.C: Drug-driving-behaviour: differences by education
Fig. 9.B: Drug-driving-behaviour: differences by gender
38
3.4.2.6
Experiences and attitudes towards DUI as a fellow passenger
Fellow passengers can have a decisive influence on the other people’s decision to drive under the
influence of alcohol or drugs. Even though the driver himself or herself may tend to perform the risky
behaviour he or she will at least pay attention to the issue when potential fellow passengers comment on
the problem or even refuse to join the ride.
As previously pointed out in chapter 3.4.2.2, we can assume a moderate but significant influence of peers
on the individuals’ attitudes and behavioural intentions. Thus, for risk communication on the DUI-issue the
perspective of fellow passengers should be taken into account as well, as they may influence drivers
personally right at the moment before it may come to risky driving behaviours. This is supposed to be a
useful and successful element of a profound communication strategy. Figure 10.A reveals that about half
of the young drivers and prospective drivers have already experienced drink-driving as a fellow
passenger, of those 21 % even did several times. One fifth has experienced drug-driving as a fellow
passenger, nearly 10 % did several times (see fig. 10.B). Differences between the frequency of
experiences of drivers and prospective drivers, both with regard to drink-driving and to drug-driving as
fellow passengers, were not found.
35 to 40 % of the fellow passengers (both men and women) state that they commented on the problem
and talked to the driver (see fig. 10.C and D). But some remarkable differences in dealing with these
situations between women and men become obvious, too. Overall, women tend to be more responsibleminded and behave more cautiously: They refuse to join the ride significantly more often than men, while
the latter tend to do nothing (see fig. 10.C and D). Furthermore they feel responsible for the driver’s safety
to a higher extent and they rather look for alternatives instead of joining a ride with somebody who drank
alcohol or took drugs (fig. 10.E). The same tendency can also be identified for young people having
gained experience as a driver themselves (see fig. 10.F).
These results confirm the findings described in the previous chapters which identified men and
prospective drivers as higher risk groups.
Fig. 10.A: Fellow-passengers' experience in drink-driving:
differences by gender
Fig. 10.B: Fellow-passengers' experience in drugdriving: differences by gender
39
Fig. 10.C: Fellow-passengers' dealing with drink-driving-situations: differences by gender
Fig. 10.D: Fellow-passengers' dealing with drug-driving-situations: differences by gender
Women have been in drink-driving and drug-driving situations as fellow passengers less often than men
(see fig. 10.A and B). Taken into account that drink-driving and drug-driving is both more common among
men (see fig. 9.A and 9.B) and that men perceive a higher tendency towards DUI in their social
environment (see fig. 6.A) it can be presumed that in many cases it comes to DUI behaviours among
same gender groups. For this reason the opportunity to reach male risk groups via their female friends
and partners who are more sensitized and accessible for the DUI issues seems to be limited.
40
Fig. 10.E: Fellow-passengers’ attitudes: differences by gender
Fig. 10.F: Fellow-passengers’ attitudes: drivers vs. prospective drivers
Taken together, young people on the one hand show comparatively strong rejections against DUI-related
behaviours in general and seem to be rather sensitized for the problem (see chapter 3.4.2.1). But on the
other hand drink-driving seems so be common among the peer groups (fig. 6.A) and many fellow
passengers have already experienced drink-driving (fig. 10.A) but do not take the offensive and express
their concerns (fig. 10.C). Thus, risk communication messages should motivate young fellow passengers
to assume their responsibility and to act immediately when it comes to problematic situations. They
should be encouraged to address the problem explicitly towards the potential drink-driver and towards
other peers.
41
Interest in DUI-Topics: Differences by Gender (%)
27
How can I as passenger find out if my driver has drunk
alcohol or taken drugs?
34
21
21
22
20
How do alcohol and drugs affect drivers’ attention?
19
19
18
How dangerous are alcohol and drugs when driving a car?
15
How much alcohol and drugs are permitted, if I want to drive
a car?
11
19
5
How can I avoid to drive a car under influence of alcohol or
drugs?
3
6
13
none of these
10
15
total
(n=767)
women
(n=376)
men
(n=391)
0
20
40 %
Question: Please imagine that five brochures with these headlines are lying on a table in a doctor’s
waiting room. Which borchure will you grab, which one is the most interesting to you? (p < .01)
Fig. 11.A: Interest in DUI-topics: differences by gender
3.4.3 Interest and engagement in DUI-topics
On the basis of this survey, one can expect that young people can successfully be reached by risk
communication messages. Only 12.5 % of the respondents state that they were not interested in a
brochure about the DUI-topic at all (see fig. 11.A). The respondents’ interest in five different issues about
driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs ranges between five and 27 %.
Furthermore it becomes obvious that men and women need to be addressed with different messages. In
comparison to women, men are more interested in the instrumental utility of information which helps them
to dose alcohol and drug consumption within the permitted limits. Women are particularly interested how
they as passengers can find out if the driver has drunk alcohol or taken drugs. This underlines their higher
level of cautiousness and the potentials as peers in the role as fellow passengers (see fig. 11.A).
Corresponding to the current state of research in health communication, low educated young people
show less interest in preventive messages (see fig 11.B). Differences between average and high levels of
education are less obvious. Thus, educational levels should not principally be treated as having a linear
influence on the openness towards risk communication messages. But the very low educated seem to be
addressed in specific manners.
Between drivers and prospective drivers no significant differences regarding to their interest in different
topics were found.
42
Fig. 11.B: Interest in DUI-topics: differences by education
Fig. 11.C: Readiness to support a DUI prevention
campaign: differences by gender
Fig. 11.D: Readiness to support a DUI prevention
campaign: differences by education
43
Fig. 11.E: Type of potential support in DUI prevention campaign
Overall, 35 % (n=277) of the young drivers and prospective drivers can imagine to support a campaign
which is supposed to warn young people about driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 43.7 %
refuse this and 21.3 % are undecided in their potential engagement. Differences by gender are very
obvious: Women show a much stronger readiness to engage in DUI-prevention by taking communication
initiatives themselves (see fig. 11.C). As one would expect, educational level is a strong predictor as well
(see fig. 11.D). On the other hand, drivers and prospective drivers do not differ significantly from each
other.
Those who can imagine supporting a campaign are most likely willing to communicate about it in their
peer groups (75 % can imagine to bring the campaign to the attention of people they know, 50 % would
forward links). Activities requesting higher levels of personal engagement like serving an information
desk, attaching flyers to cars or organizing talk sessions) will find fewer participants (see fig. 11.E).
The principal accessibility of this young target audience by risk communication messages is affirmed by
the fact that 74.2 % know the campaign called ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’) overall. Promotion for this
campaign is on billboards at roadsides, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, radio
commercials and cinema spots.
It seems reasonable that those who already have experiences as a driver and are older have recognized
the campaign more often (see fig. 11.F and 11.H). And corresponding to the previous results, a low level
of education is connected to less attention for risk communication messages (see fig. 11.G).
44
Fig. 11.F: Perception of campaign ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’):
differences by age (n=790; p < .01)
Fig. 11.G: Perception of campaign ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’):
differences by education (n=790; p < .01)
Fig. 11.H: Perception of campaign ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’):’
drivers vs. prospective drivers (n=790; p < .01)
45
3.4.4 Media use and preferences for channels and message contents
In addition to attitudinal and behavioural aspects, young people’s media use is a key dimension in
clarifying the conditions of successful risk communication on drinking, drug consumption, and driving
(Medienpsychologischer Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2010). While some data on general media use
was generated, the focus of investigation was on online media and social network sites in particular (see
fig. 12.G, fig. 12.H, fig. 12.I and chapter 3.4.4.2).
From the following results, strategic conclusions on potentially effective platforms and channels of DUIrelated risk communication can be drawn.
3.4.4.1
General media use
When asked about important media for staying informed about current events, young people display a
strong tendency towards online communication. Television is also named frequently; newspapers seem
to play only a marginal role in participants’ daily information uptake. The dominant reliance on the internet
occurs across gender, age, and education groups (figures 12.A, 12.B, and 12.C).
Fig. 12.A: General media use: differences by gender
46
Fig. 12.B: General media use: differences by education
Fig. 12.C: General media use: differences by age
47
While there is a strong preoccupation with the internet, self-ratings of average weekday television use
suggest that TV still plays an important role as well in young people’s media diet. The majority of
respondents estimates an own daily TV use of two or three hours on weekdays, which converges well
with more objective data from general TV audience research. Formally high educated participants were
substantially less likely to practice heavy television viewing; the proportion of intense viewers (4 hours or
more per day) was notably higher among the average and low education groups (figures 12.D, 12.E, and
12.F).
Fig. 12.D: Television consumption: differences by gender
48
TV Consumption: Differences by Education (%)
%
60
39
40
32
29
9
1 1
22 22
20
17
20
27
12
14
13
7
10
9
5
3
7
2
0
never watch
TV
low
average
less than 1
hour
about 1 hour about 2 hours about 3 hours about 4 hours
more than 4
hours
high
Question: On average, how many hours do you watch TV on a normal weekday – from Monday to
Friday? Would you say…
Fig. 12.E: Television consumption: differences by education
TV Consumption: Differences by Age (%)
%
60
40
31
34
36
25
19
20
10
1 2
13 11
16
21
23
15
9
10
7
6
2
5 6
0
never watch
TV
less than 1
hour
15-17 years
about 1 hour about 2 hours about 3 hours about 4 hours
18-21 years
more than 4
hours
22-24 years
Question: On average, how many hours do you watch TV on a normal weekday – from Monday to
Friday? Would you say…
Fig. 12.F: Television consumption: differences by age
49
Internet Use: Differences by Gender (%)
%
60
63
57
60
40
20
17
14
22 21 23
12
1
3
0
0
0
1
2
2
2
0
never
total
less often
men
once a week
several times a
week
once a day
several times a
day
women
Question: How often do you use the internet? Would you say...
Fig. 12.G: Internet use: differences by gender
Internet Use: Differences by Education (%)
69
%
60
52
55
40
25
22 21
21
20
14
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
0
never
low
average
less often
once a week
several times a
week
high
Fig. 12.H. Internet use: Differences by education
once a day
several times a
day
50
Internet Use: Differences by Age (%)
%
63
60
60
58
40
24
20
20
16
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
13
22
16
4
1
0
never
less often
15-17 years
18-21 years
once a week
several times a
week
once a day
several times a
day
22-24 years
Fig. 12.I. Internet use: differences by age
Self-ratings of internet use confirms findings from other audience studies (e.g Medienpsychologischer
Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2010): Young people spend much time online, with the majority reporting
internet use several times per day (figures 12.G, 12.H and 12.I). Virtually all adolescents and young
adults aged 15 to 24 years use the internet at least several times a week. Young people on high education tracks display a particularly high probability of using the internet intensively.
3.4.4.2
In-depth-analysis of online-communication
In addition to the analysis of content interests, the dimension of used online services and applications is
important to describe young people’s style of internet communication. Therefore, participants reported
their engagement in a list of diverse modes of internet use, including active contribution to online contents
with texts, photos and videos (fig. 13.B).
Results converge with general online research: Patterns of gender-specific content interests (fig. 13.A)
correspond to women’s and men’s main areas of interest in general. Services of interpersonal
communication dominate young people’s online use: e-mail, social network sites, and instant messaging
belong to the most popular modes of online communication among participants. Other Web 2.0 services
that enjoy great public attention such as weblogs and wikis, however, are relevant only to a minority of
young people.
Clearly, social network sites emerge as key ‘entrance’ for campaigns of risk communication that intend to
capitalize on young people’s strong involvement with online media. Supplementary, platforms offering film
and music downloads could work as suitable access paths to the young target audience.
While men show a comparatively high affinity to online games, especially women could be addressed via
online-shops (fig. 13.B).
51
Fig. 13.A: Internet use: interest in content topics by gender
52
Fig. 13.B: Online communication: use of services and applications by gender
53
Fig. 13.C: Online communication: use of services and applications by age
54
An inspection of age differences in used online services and applications (fig. 13.C) reveals that
adolescents aged 15 to 17 have the highest probability to engage in instant messaging and active
contributions of web content (especially photos, videos). Adolescents are also more likely to play online
games, which is also a potentially powerful channel for risk communication, especially targeting males.
Finally, adolescents are found to be more involved in acquiring and watching movies online than young
adults. Overall, the age analysis suggests that in future years, the intensity of online use for various
purposes – particularly for entertainment purposes – will continue to rise, as today’s adolescents display
especially strong preferences both for classic instrumental functions such as e-mail, but also for
entertainment purposes such as games, music and movies.
A comparison of prospect drivers and young drivers concerning their affinity to the different online
services and applications did not reveal any relevant systematic difference among groups; prospective
drivers displayed a higher likelihood of playing online games (40 % versus 32 % among young drivers)
and a lower likelihood of online shopping (38 % versus 54 % among young drivers). Therefore, both
target audiences were found to hold similar affinity patterns in online communication.
Fig. 13.D: Online communication: use of features in social network sites by gender
55
Detailed questions on respondents‘ preferred activities when using social network sites reveal the great
importance of social media such as ‘facebook’ for interpersonal communication (figure 13.D). From a risk
communication perspective, it is important to note that about one third of the participants reported active
contributions to conversations in online-groups and to the diffusion of online media assets such as photos
or videos. Half of them post comments on bulletin boards or guest-books of others. Both the popularity of
interpersonal and in-group communication and the dispersion of media messages available online (e.g.,
‘YouTube’ videos) are of interest to strategic risk communication campaigns.
As following posted links is conspicuously not very common (not more than 5 %), campaigns primarily
working with external link strategies and adverts on popular social network sites will probably not be
successful enough to reach high ratios of the target audiences and to attract their attention. Initiators of
such campaigns should aim to establish their own attractive profiles in online communities and supply
interesting information in order to get in touch with members of the target audiences personally and to
initiate follow-up communication.
Fig. 13.E: Online communication: use of features in social network sites: prospective drivers versus drivers
56
To this end, the target audiences of prospect drivers and young drivers were compared concerning their
use of features in social network sites (fig. 13.E). While the patterns of use are generally similar for the
two groups, prospective drivers were found to be more likely to engage in active self-presentation
(working on their own profile pages), in uploading and forwarding of media assets such as photos or
videos, and in participating in online groups within the network site. These differences are notable yet not
massive; however, they suggest that social network sites may be particularly effective in communicating
DUI risks to and with the prospective driver segment.
Confirming previous results (e.g., from the “JIM” studies: www.mpfs.de), survey results on media use
overall demonstrate the great importance of online communication and social media in particular for
young audiences, including prospective drivers and young drivers. Learning about topics of interest,
discussing, and even creating digital artefacts related to topics of interests are common and popular
elements of young people’s lifestyles. They link online communication ‘naturally’ to their everyday
activities, including school, work, leisure time, hobbies, and, most importantly, staying in touch with their
peer groups. One consequence is that online media provide both thematic contexts (such as cars/racing
for young men) and technical channels (such as viral diffusion of campaign videos) for innovative ways of
risk communication about alcohol, drugs, medicines, and driving. This is particularly true for prospective
drivers, for whom the ‘digitalization’ and ‘internetization’ of everyday life is even more advanced than for
today’s young drivers. Still, both target audiences are similarly involved in online communication and the
use of social network sites. So, strategic approaches that involve interpersonal (peer) communication,
rich media assets (such as pre-produced campaign videos) and also creative approaches (such as digital
art projects on DUI aspects) are particularly promising perspectives for campaign planning and
implementation.
To a somewhat lesser extent, the same holds true for game-based campaign approaches. Survey results
indicate that 54 percent of all young males aged 15 to 24 years are involved in online game play (see fig.
13.B). Given the great motivational and persuasion potential of serious games, notable chances for
reaching out to male prospective drivers and young drivers are lying in online games as well. However, in
contrast to the social network sites, the gaming domain is found to be highly ‘gendered’: Only 16 percent
of young women play such games, which limits the value of games as channel of risk communication at
least for female target audiences considerably.
3.4.4.3
Credibility and trustfulness of different sources of information
When it comes to difficult topics such as drinking and driving or consuming drugs and driving, credible
and trustworthy sources of information and partners for conversation are most important for young
people, especially for reduction of uncertainty and for negotiating behavioural limits. Therefore, the survey
did not only measure young people’s actual media use, but also addressed which kind of people in the
social environment – parents, friends, doctors, to name some examples – and in the mass media are
perceived as credible partners for discussions and/or sources of information about the DUI issues.
At the level of interpersonal discussion – the most important pathway for young people to learn about
risks and risk avoidance – findings suggest that most young people perceive DUI topics as something
that they prefer to negotiate with friends (figure 14.A). Parents are named as trustworthy conversation
partners only by about one third of respondents. Institutional agents such as doctors or sports trainers
rank relatively low when it comes to preferred conversation partners. In spite of the great affinity to online
communication, respondents’ proclivity to negotiate a difficult topic such as the DUI complex in online
environments such as social network sites – anonymously or without anonymity – remains quite low.
The comparison of prospective drivers and young drivers reveals virtually no systematic differences in
preferred conversation partners (figure 14.B). Drivers are more likely to select their (romantic) partner for
such discussions, which may be explained by drivers’ age and greater likelihood to be engaged in longgrown romantic partnerships. Prospective drivers display a greater interest in discussion the difficult DUI
nexus with people they hold contact to via the internet; yet the absolute relevance of this type of
conversation partner remains rather low for prospect drivers, too.
One notable finding is that only about three percent of respondents actively claimed they would not talk to
anybody about DUI topics. Thus, a general readiness to discuss issues around alcohol, drugs, and driving
is highly prevalent about both prospect and young drivers. The fact that friends (and partners) are named
most frequently as preferred conversation partners underlines the importance of peer-oriented
approaches in risk communication campaigns.
57
Preferred Conversation Partner for DUI-Topics. Differences by Gender (%)
3
1
5
wouldn t talk to anyone
1
1
1
others
3
2
4
coach in sports club
5
6
5
teachers/docents
11
12
other member of family
9
11
searching anonymously for advice in
internet
9
13
12
11
13
people in online community
12
14
11
doctor
29
siblings
35
23
35
partner
40
30
46
parents
53
40
70
male/female friend
76
%
65
total
women
men
0
20
40
60
80
Question: Who would you talk to about experiences, personal problems or questions about alcohol
and drugs in traffic? Who would be your preferred partner for such a conversation?
Fig. 14.A: Preferred conversation partner for DUI-topics: differences by gender
100
58
Preferred conversation partner for DUI-topics:
Drivers vs. Prospective Drivers (%)
2
4
1
0
others
4
3
coach in sports club
4
teachers/docents
6
10
12
10
internet
14
9
16
14
doctor
11
31
siblings
25
43
partner
24
46
46
parents
70
male/female friend
0
Drivers
%
71
20
40
60
80
Prospective Drivers
Question: Who would you talk to about experiences, personal problems or questions about alcohol
and drugs in traffic? Who would be your preferred partner for such a conversation?
Fig. 14.B: Preferred conversation partner for DUI-topics: drivers vs. prospective drivers
100
59
Fig. 14.C: Credibility of communicators in the media: differences by gender
60
Fig. 14.D: Credibility of communicators in the media: drivers vs. prospective drivers
61
At the level of mass communication, different categories of people may be perceived as credible and
effective messengers for risk communication about difficult topics. These categories of people relate to
different strategies (and theories) of mass media persuasion. For example, from a persuasion
perspective, expert sources such as scientists ‘function’ differently from sports celebrities who endorse a
risk communication message. Therefore, the survey included judgments of credibility for different
categories of ‘media people’ who could be part of risk communication campaigns also in the DUI context.
Findings indicate that the majority of young people value exemplars, that is, young people with personal
experiences in the ‘difficult’ domain. Next, expert sources such as researchers and people who work at
counselling institutions are judged as credible by about half of the respondents. Interestingly, media
people from the entertainment sector, such as sportsmen, television show hosts, or musicians, who might
intuitively be thought to appeal to young people, are evaluated as trustworthy sources only by minorities
of young people.
The comparison of prospective drivers and drivers again displays very similar perceptions and judgments.
Prospective drivers reported trust in entertainment celebrity endorsers (sportsmen, musicians) more
frequently than young drivers, and they also assigned credibility more often to ‘young people’ (i.e., peers)
as media communicators. In contrast, young drivers named ‘serious’ expert sources such as scientists
more frequently than prospect drivers.
Overall, findings on credible media agents clearly show the importance of exemplar-based
communication; young people who tell their stories about alcohol, drugs, and driving are most likely to
enjoy positive credibility judgments by target audiences. Celebrity endorsers from the entertainment
sector may be helpful for risk communication campaigns in generating public attention for the issue; as
key messengers of DUI themes, they seem to be less suited than ‘serious’ agents such as researchers or
counselling workers giving public statements. While this valid specifically for young drivers, some
prospective drivers might also be addressed successfully by less ‘serious agents’ from the entertainment
sector.
62
3.4.4.4
Celebrity endorsement
As a complementary way of measuring young audiences‘ responses to different types of media people as
messengers of DUI-related issues, the survey included an experimental component. Four different
celebrities were presented as endorsers of a simple billboard message against combined drinking, drug
consumption, and driving (see methods chapter 3.2.2). A between-subject design was implemented, so
each participant was confronted with one of the four billboard images showing one of the celebrities. A
series of global and specific rating judgments was requested from respondents after s/he had viewed the
image. The idea was to find out whether celebrities from the media entertainment sector who either have
a biography of (excessive) drug consumption (Pete Doherty, Amy Winehouse) or have a ‘drug-free’
biography would be found more appealing and credible by young people. The research design thus nicely
complemented the previous findings (see chapter 3.4.4.3.) suggesting that ordinary young folks with
personal experience in DUI issues were rated most frequently as suited campaign communicators,
whereas entertainment media celebrities were rarely judged as credible campaign endorsers. The
experimental design checked how young audiences would react to mixed-type of celebrities – that is,
show business people whose drug experiences have been widely publicized.
A two-factorial ANOVA with ‘celebrity gender’ and ‘celebrity drug affinity’ on general liking of the pilot
billboard image clearly reveals that celebrities with a publicly known history of drug abuse (i.e., Amy
Winehouse and Pete Doherty) generate more negative overall judgments (see figure 15.A). The main
effect of celebrity drug affinity is significant (p <. 01, effect size η² =.06). Interestingly, a weak interaction
effect of ‘celebrity gender’ and ‘celebrity drug affinity’ emerged, which was caused by a disproportionately
negative rating of the billboard that featured Amy Winehouse as celebrity endorser (interaction p <.05,
effect size η² <.01).
In addition to the overall liking, respondents were also invited to make more specific judgments about the
billboard image with celebrity endorsement. Ratings of the statement “The message is credible” displayed
the same pattern as the general liking question (figure 15.B): Celebrity endorsers with high drug affinity
caused substantially lower credibility perceptions than celebrities with a drug-free biography (main effect
p < .01, effect size η² =.10). Again, Amy Winehouse received clearly the lowest ratings when she
appeared as endorser of the DUI risk communication message (interaction p < .01, effect size η² =.01).
Fig. 15.A: Effects of celebrity’s drug affinity and celebrity’s
gender on overall liking of pilot risk communication
billboard (scale ranged from -5 (‘do not like at all’) to +5 (‘like
very much’))
Fig. 15.B: Effects of celebrity’s drug affinity and celebrity’s
gender on credibility judgments of pilot risk
communication billboard (scale ranged from 1 “does not
apply at all” to 5 “applies to full extent”)
63
Fig. 15.C: Effects of celebrity’s drug affinity and celebrity’s
gender
on
surprised
judgments
of
pilot
risk
Fig.15.D: Effects of celebrity’s drug affinity and celebrity’s
gender on embarrassment judgments of pilot risk
A different, even reverse pattern of impact was observed for the dimension of surprise (figure 15.C).
Respondents obviously found the appearance of celebrities with a drug abuse history a novel approach,
whereas the clear-of-drugs celebrities did not cause so much surprise (main effect p < .01,
effect size η² =.07). Moreover, the inspection of ratings on the item ‘ridiculous/embarrassing’ revealed that
with the greater surprise, less favourable judgments come along, because the celebrities with a drug
abuse history caused substantially stronger agreement with the statement that the billboard is ridiculous
and embarrassing (figure 15.D, main effect p < .01, effect size η² =.11).
The experimental results so far suggest that in general, celebrities with a ‘no drugs’ image are evaluated
by young people as more credible and effective endorsers than celebrities with a publicly known history of
drug abuse. While endorsements of stars with high drug affinity seems to attract more public attention
through surprise and novelty effects (figure 15.C), they cause substantially less favourable ratings on
important dimensions such as credibility or embarrassment.
Inspections of further dimensions of message evaluation did not reveal more experimental effects of
comparable strength; however, the tendency of more positive judgments of Philipp Lahm and Lena
Meyer-Landruth as endorsers of DUI-related risk communication emerged across all specific ratings.
The final step of experimental analysis was the exploration of profile variables that may moderate the
experimental effects of celebrity attributes on message evaluation. First, respondent gender was
analyzed through three-factorial ANOVAs with respondent gender, celebrity gender, and celebrity drug
affinity as factors. Dependent variables were again the general liking of the billboard message as well as
specific judgments such as credibility. While women tended to make slightly more favourable judgments
in general, no substantial moderation effects were found, as no interaction between participant gender
and one or both of the experimental factors occurred. Thus, the experimental findings reported above
held both for male and for female participants.
Moderation analyses were also conducted to explore whether prospect drivers and young drivers would
differ in their judgments of different celebrity endorsers of DUI-related risk messages. In general, young
people who do not hold a driving license yet displayed very similar evaluation patters to what holders of a
driving license said. However, for general liking and message credibility, a weak yet significant three-way
interaction between target audience (prospective driver versus young driver), celebrity gender, and
celebrity drug affinity emerged: Prospective drivers made the most favourable judgments about Philipp
Lahm (male/clear-of-drugs), whereas young drivers made the most favourable statements when Lena
Meyer-Landruth appeared as endorser of the risk communication message (three way interaction for
general liking p < .05, effect size η² < .01; similar results for credibility as dependent variable).
64
The prospective drivers and young drivers both prefer ‘clear-of-drugs’ celebrities as endorsers; yet the
younger target audience of prospect drivers tends to like a message by Philipp Lahm better, whereas the
(somewhat older) young drivers tend to prefer Lena Meyer-Landruth. This moderation effect is likely not a
conceptual issue of celebrity gender in general, but probably reflects age-specific image discrepancies
between the two clear-of-drugs celebrities Lahm and Meyer-Landruth who had been included in the
present experiment.
Additional analyses for DUI-specific risk groups are required (see chapter 3.4.5), for the general young
(prospective and active) drivers’ population, however, the experiment on celebrity endorsement of DUIrelated risk communication has revealed clear and strategically very valuable results: With endorsers who
are known for a drug abuse biography, more attention via surprise effects can be generated; on the other
hand, such drug affinity celebrities are likely to also cause less favourable judgments on various
dimensions such as credibility of embarrassment.
3.4.5 Risk
groups
as
audiences:
in-depth
people with affinity to alcohol, drugs and driving
3.4.5.1
analysis
for
young
Risk group analysis: relevance and categorization procedure
So far, survey results have been presented that concern conceptual and strategic issues in designing risk
communication messages for the young prospective and active driver populations at large. Given the
necessity to reach out to the whole population, these findings mark valuable resources for planning
message content and channel/platform strategies.
However, in order to develop effective approaches in prevention of road accidents related to alcohol
and/or drugs consumption of drivers, a segmentation of the audience of risk communication campaigns
based on risk affinity is indicated: It is important to explore potential particularities in young drivers (and
prospective drivers as well) who are tolerant against or especially prone to engage in drinking and driving,
drug consumption and driving, or even a combined use of alcohol and drugs when driving. Young people
who are by disposition more likely to display the undesired consumption and driving behaviours need
special attention when it comes to campaign strategy. Risk groups may need specific addressing both in
terms of message contents (e.g., communication about social norms or self-efficacy; see chapters 3.4.4.2
and 3.4.4.3) and message channels. If a campaign succeeds in tailoring campaign contents and
channels/platforms to risk groups within the general population, a substantial gain in overall prevention
impact is likely to result. Therefore, the final part of the analysis presents findings on comparisons
between different risk groups identified in the survey sample. Risk group categorization was conducted
following a 2 (disapprobation of drink-driving versus at least weak acceptance of drink-driving) x 2
(disapprobation of drug-driving versus at least weak acceptance of drug-driving) design. Consequently,
the sample was divided into four groups, one of which displayed an overall low risk level (disapprobation
of drink-driving and drug-driving), two further groups displayed a (weak) risk disposition towards one of
the substance groups involved in driving (i.e., alcohol or drug consumption when driving), and the final
group exhibited a high risk level, as members hold at least weak acceptance of driving under the
influence of both substance groups (i.e., alcohol and drug consumption when driving).
Technically, the categorization of DUI-related risk affinity was implemented based on distribution data of
an attitude measure (‘permissivity scale’) invented by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion
Research. Participants rated the acceptability of various problematic behaviours, including “driving
although one has drunk too much” and “driving although one has taken drugs” (see section 3.1 for
detailed results). Because the majority of respondents had stated that both behaviours were “not at all”
acceptable, DUI-related risk affinity was operationalized through any acceptability judgment that was
higher than the minimum. The acceptability scales ranged from 1 (“not at all”) to 10 (“totally acceptable”);
so the present definition of dispositional risk affinity towards alcohol and driving includes any respondent
who had judged the acceptability of “driving although one as drunk too much” at least with the score “2”.
This was true for 25 per cent of the sample. The definition of risk affinity towards drug consumption and
driving included all respondents who had rated the acceptability of “driving although one has taken drugs”
at least with the score “2”, which was the case for about 19 per cent of the sample.
65
Applying this criterion for dispositional risk affinity means that very broad segments of the young
population are described as risk group. However, given the fact that the vast majority of respondents
homogeneously declared no acceptance for drink-driving nor for drug-driving, any person that even
slightly deviates from this mainstream opinion is of interest in the present context. An overview of risk
group demographics based on the implemented categorization is offered by table 2.
No risk disposition
% of group males
% of group prospective drivers
% of group young drivers
% of group low education
% of group mid-level education
% of group high education
(n = 560)
46
52
48
20
28
42
Risk disposition
drugs only
(n = 25)
60
54
46
44
24
32
Risk disposition
alcohol only
(n = 79)
58
35
65
15
39
46
Risk disposition
drugs and alcohol
(n = 115)
67
52
48
40
30
30
Tab. 2: Description of DUI-related risk groups by demographic variables
Comparing the different risk groups, the generally higher affinity of men to alcohol and/or drugs when
driving emerges, which corresponds to findings reported earlier (section 3.1). One important discrepancy
in the demographic composition of risk groups should also be noted: While the ‘double’ risk group who is
affine to both alcohol and drugs consumption when driving includes more or less equal portions from the
different education levels, the risk group that is only alcohol-affine but not dispositionally affine to drug
intake includes a substantially larger segment of formally well-educated respondents. This means that the
particular risk group that is focused on drink-driving deserves some specific conceptual reasoning in
campaign planning, as a greater social acceptability for alcohol consumption when driving across diverse
segments of the population is likely the reason for the finding.
As the procedure of risk group segmentation is based on both the drivers’ and the prospective drivers’
general attitudes towards drink-driving and drug-driving and not on DUI-related behaviours, it does by no
means imply that all individuals defined here as members of a dispositional risk group are in fact involved
in drink-driving and/or drug-driving or represent a core ‘high-risk’ group that would require instant action,
for example, by youth authorities.
But for those young people who already drive a car, risk dispositions correspond to risk behaviours
significantly and plausibly (fig. 16; partially small numbers of cases should be taken into account): As
expected, among those who do not accept drink-driving and drug-driving at all (‘no risk disposition’) only a
small or very small group has ever practiced this behaviour. Among the ‘alcohol only’ risk subaudience
drink-driving is more common than drug-driving (29 % versus 2 %), and among the ‘drugs only’ risk
subaudience drug-driving is slightly more common than drink-driving (60 % versus 46 %, small numbers
of cases should be taken into account). The highest ratios of drink-drivers and drug-drivers can be found
among those who show DUI-related risk dispositions for drugs only or for drugs and alcohol. Thus, risk
dispositions associated with drugs or with drugs in combination with alcohol seem to be particularly
precarious as they are significantly connected to both types of DUI-related behaviours.
66
DUI-behaviours among DUI-related risk groups (drivers only)
%
65
70
60
60
46
50
38
40
29
30
20
17
10
3
2
0
drink-driving happened
(n=431; p < .01)
no risk disposition
(n=315/325)
risk disposition
drugs only
(n=11/10)
drug-driving happened
(n=440; p < .01)
risk disposition
alcohol only
(n=51/52)
risk disposition
drugs and alcohol
(n=54/53)
Question: Has it ever hapened to you, that you were driving a car, although you had drunk too much
alcohol/although you have taken one of these drugs, or has it never happened before?
Fig. 16: DRUID-behaviours among DUI-related risk groups (drivers only)
3.4.5.2
Comparative analysis of key communication issues among DUI-related risk groups
In order to better understand the conditions of risk communication addressing DUI-related risk groups, the
categorized risk level segments of the sample were compared with regard to different crucial
communication variables that could play a role in future campaigns.
An analysis of the risk groups’ topic interest in online communication did not reveal fundamental
differences between no-risk, mid-risk, and high-risk respondents (see figure 17.A, please note that due to
the low case number, the risk group with a disposition towards drug consumption and driving has not
been included in this diagram). The interest profile of those young people who display a particularly
strong risk disposition (i.e., for drinking and consuming drugs when driving) differs from the low-risk
mainstream in a notable way, however. Their profile mirrors what is known from male, formally low
educated audiences: Relatively frequent reportings of interest in humour and comedy, computer, cars and
technology, and relatively rare mentionings of politics, everyday advice, health topics and a few other
‘serious’ issues. The interest profile of those young people with an affinity to alcohol and driving does not
suggest a similarly systematic difference form the low-risk mainstream. So the findings presented in figure
17.A allow planning specific campaign elements that operate via domain-related interests of the high DUIrelated risk subaudience.
67
Internet Use: Interest in Content Topics by DUI-related risk disposition (%)
economy
health topics
environment/nature
practical advice (e.g. consumer advices)
4
4
4
10
10
12
11
18
12
10
18
technology
fitness/nutrition
culture/theatre/festivals
cars/motorsports
partnership/love
politics/world affairs
sports (except motorsports)
news about VIP s/celebrities
travel
weather
computer
local events
job/career
fashion/styling
fun/comedy
27
19
14
24
29
22
24
16
23
29
30
22
22
25
23
25
19
28
28
29
33
27
26
25
29
20
34
30
23
30
33
30
30
28
34
33
25
33
35
28
39
39
42
39
37
cinema
music
53
55
57
55
77
84
83
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
disposition alcohol and drugs
disposition alcohol only
no risk disposition
Question: One can find information on the internet on almost any topic. If you think of your own interest
use: Which topics are you most interested in? Reading example: 53 % of people with a double risk
affinity towards alcohol and drugs are interested
Fig. 17.A: Topic interests in online communication by DUI-related risk groups
68
Interests in DUI Topics: Differences by DUI-related risk group (%)
13
11
none of these
28
11
9
5
how to avoid driving under influence of alcohol/drugs
12
4
15
27
Influence of alcohol/drugs on attention when driving
8
danger of alcohol/drugs when driving
4
21
13
17
20
33
18
20
permitted amount of alcohol/drugs when driving
10
17
22
19
find out if driver has drunk/taken drugs
30
0
20
dispostion alcohol and drugs
disposition alcohol only
disposition drugs only
no risk diposition
40
60
80
100
Question: Please imagine that five brochures with these headlines are lying on a table in a
doctor´s waiting room. Which brochure will you grab, which one is the most interesting to you?
Fig. 17.B: Interests in DUI-related prevention topics by DUI-related risk groups
A comparison of the DUI-related risk groups concerning which issue in DUI prevention would be of
interest reveals that young people with an affinity towards ‘drink-driving’ and/or ‘drug-driving’ tend to be
less interested than the low-risk mainstream in active prevention topics such as how to recognize drivers
who have consumed substances. Rather, alcohol- and/or drug-affine respondents declared quite
frequently an interest in legal limits of alcohol and drug consumption and to a lesser degree interest in the
effects of substance use on driving performance (figure 17.B).
The DUI-related risk groups were also compared with regard to their readiness to support a DUI-related
prevention campaign. With increasing affinity to alcohol, drugs, or both substances, readiness to play an
active role in such a campaign declines: Respondents who were categorized to hold a dispositional
affinity toward drink-driving and drug-driving were least likely to declare readiness for campaign support
(figure 17.C).
In turn, those approximately 14 percent of the high-risk group who said they could imagine participation in
a prevention campaign would be of particular interest for peer-related approaches, as they could a) mark
‘experienced’ and thus credible messengers to other target audiences and b) be ‘converted’ into less riskaffine drivers precisely through an active participation in a campaign.
69
Support for DUI prevention
campaign by risk groups (%)
%
100
80
39
42
49
66
60
20
31
40
20
28
20
42
27
23
14
0
no risk disposition disposition disposition
disposition drugs only alcohol only alcohol and
drugs
could imagine
no opinion
would not be something for me
Question: Could you imaine to support a
campaign that warns young people against the
dangers of alcohol/drugs when driving?
Fig. 17.C: Readiness to support a DRUID-related campaign
by DUI-related risk group. Note: The case number of the
risk group “disposition towards drugs only” is low (n = 26)
Young people with different affinities to alcohol and/or drug consumption may also differ concerning their
preferences in partners of interpersonal communication about DUI-related risks. A comparison of
according responses to survey items revealed some important peculiarities of alcohol- and drug-affine
respondents (figure 17.D). Specifically, high-risk individuals were substantially less likely than other risk
groups and the no-risk mainstream to name their parents and their relationship partners as trustworthy for
conversations about DUI topics. Therefore, a peer-oriented campaign approach appears to be indicated
especially for high-risk individuals who are affine towards both alcohol and drug consumption.
To further illuminate risk groups’ communication preferences, ANOVAs were computed to determine
whether the DUI-related risk group variable would moderate the impact of celebrity gender and celebrity
drug affinity on risk communication message evaluation (see section 3.3.4). No moderation effects were
observed; message evaluation patterns did not differ among risk groups or between no-risk mainstream
respondents and members of one of the risk group categories. For none of the key dependent variables
of the experimental elements of the survey, significant interactions between risk group and experimental
factors emerged. The general patterns of message evaluation in the context of celebrity endorsement
thus held for all risk groups just as for the no-risk group.
70
Preferred conversation partner for DUI-topics:
Differences by DUI-related Risk Group (%)
5
8
12
1
0
6
6
13
14
13
internet
10
8
17
15
11
10
doctor
0
19
14
14
22
siblings
15
30
31
23
45
46
partner
36
25
parents
15
41
53
69
male/female friend
69
70
0
20
40
60
risk disposition alcohol and drugs
risk disposition alcohol only
risk disposition drugs only
no risk disposition
Question: Who would you talk to about experiences, personal problems or questions about
alcohol and drugs in traffic? Who would be your preferred partner for such a conversation?
77
80
Fig. 17.D: Preferences for interpersonal communication partners about DUI-related topics by risk group
100
71
4 Synopsis
The following conclusions are derived from the recommendations formulated in the expert workshop and
the results of the subsequent survey among 15- to 24-year old people in Germany. The workshop and the
survey aimed at the relevant content, successful strategies and necessary preconditions for a successful
risk communication to young drivers and drug consumers on the issue of driving under the influence of
drugs, alcohol and medicines.
The survey addressed a broad range of topics related to the prevention of traffic accidents caused by
consumption of alcohol, drugs, and/or medicines. The results indicate adequate criterion variables for
target group segmentation and provide important background information both for strategic campaign
planning and for scientific reflection on young people’s risk and health-related behaviours. Much insight
can be extracted from mere descriptive findings, such as statements on popular online services or
preferred conversation partners when talking about DUI-related issues. Equally relevant are comparative
approaches, which categorize the young population into target audiences that (may) require tailored risk
communication strategies. From both descriptive and comparative analyses reported in chapter 3, we
derive a set of key conclusions and recommendations.
4.1 Discussion
The discussion includes issues referring to the definition of the target group, the knowledge of the age
related risks, the attitudes, the aim of the risk communication, the communication patterns in onlinecommunities, the perceived credibility of the communicator and the communication strategy. In the
chapters strategical and methodological recommendations for the implementation of measures will be
derived.
4.1.1 Definition of the target group
It is strongly recommended to address not only the 18 to 24 year olds but to include the 15 to 17 year olds
into the communication, hence attitudes on driving already start to develop and consolidate long before
the actual phase of acquiring a driving license or beginning to drive. In the present study the attitude of
prospective drivers (ages 15 to 17) towards driving under influence of alcohol or drugs is significantly less
dismissive than those of the current young drivers. It should therefore be investigated to what extend and
under which basic conditions this group can appropriately be addressed in future campaigns.
One possible opportunity might for instance be to display adolescents of the respective age-group as
accident victims on posters or in movie- or TV-spots. In the frame of an accompanying, personal
communication strategy it would be reasonable, to additionally sensitize the target group of prospective
drivers (15 to 17 year olds) for the risk of driving with unadjusted speed.
As accident research shows, the heterogeneous group of young drivers can be divided into various
homogeneous subgroups differing in lifestyle and their risk of being involved in road accidents. Certain
lifestyle groups are associated with especially high risks (Schulze, 1999; Holte 2011). The knowledge
about the peculiarities and habits of these groups can support tailoring target group specific, preventive
measures. Additionally this could be flanked by professionally designed general-preventive measures via
mass media, addressing the whole target group.
The detailed comparison of respondents with dispositional affinities towards drug-driving, drink-driving,
and both drug- and drink-driving (chapter 3.4.5.) found informative in terms of addressing those parts of
the young population who are most likely to execute DUI-related behaviours and/or to tolerate such
behaviours when in the role of passengers. Specifically, some descriptive differences emerged between
the ‘alcohol-only’ risk group and the ‘double risk – alcohol and drugs’ risk group. In the risk group that is
open towards drink-driving only, the social bias towards the lower-educated parts of society is less
dominant. A considerable part of this risk group also stems from higher-educated parts of society, a clear
indication of the greater general social acceptance of alcohol and the popularity of alcoholic beverages
throughout all parts of contemporary societies. So addressing the ‘drink-driving only’ risk group would
imply to speak to roughly a cross-section of all parts of society. In contrast, the social composition of the
72
high risk group of respondents with a disposition towards both drink-driving and drug-driving was more
strongly focused on formally low-educated men. This risk-group was found to be more difficult to address
in terms of topic interest and readiness to discuss DUI-issues with close others (especially parents); their
general openness to elaborate on DUI-related risks was also found to be particularly low, which is likely to
be a consequence or correlate of the relatively low formal education of this risk group.
4.1.2 Age related risks
Two of the most important factors for the high frequency of accidents in younger age groups are the
deficient driving experience and certain motives related to young age. For instance, young people more
often have leisure time activities at nighttimes, often in combination with consumption of alcohol and/or
drugs. This leads to a higher exposition and thus consecutively to a higher accident risk. The low driving
competence alone cannot be the reason for the high accident risk for young drivers. This is for instance
shown by the fact that the fatality rate per kilometre for young male drivers (18 to 20 year olds) is about
three times higher than the risk of young female drivers of the same age. One cannot assume that young
women have more driving experience than young men, resulting in higher developed driving
competencies. Risk communication also has to focus on change attitudes and motives related to young
age.
4.1.3 Attitudes
It is noteworthy that the general acceptance of drink-driving and drug-driving among young people is on
average very low. About 75 percent of young Germans declare driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs as entirely inacceptable. Future campaigns can build on this broad base of risk understanding in
targeting young people’s risk behaviour. Because both alcohol/drug consumption and driving behaviour of
young people are frequently shaped by peer group dynamics and not only by (more or less) stable
attitudes, the 75 percent of respondents with ‘zero acceptance’ of DUI behaviours are not necessarily
safe from being involved in such behaviours. The acceptance data thus primarily represent a cognitiveattitudinal base from which future campaigns can benefit, for instance, in affecting actual behaviour or
involving young people in peer-oriented persuasion strategies.
Comparative analyses clearly indicate that permissive attitudes towards drink-driving and drug-driving are
more prevalent among males than among females, more prevalent among formally lower-educated young
people than among higher-educated young people, and more typical for prospective drivers than for
actual drivers. As this tendency is evident for young people in the role as fellow passengers as well, and
as fellow passengers mostly belong to the relevant peers, risk communication should address young
people as fellow passengers specifically. In this sense, well-known risk factors of traffic accident
involvement (young males with low formal education are especially likely to be injured or to die in road
accidents, cf. NELL, 2002) are also valid for the DUI risk analysis. From this perspective, the attitudinal
information should be read as follows: While ‘zero’ acceptance of drink-driving and drug-driving alone
does not protect young people from involvement in DUI behaviours (e.g., due to peer-group dynamics or
instable/malleable attitudes), attitudes that are more permissive concerning drink-driving and drug-driving
mark a clear disposition towards these behaviours that justify a categorization of holders of such
permissive attitudes as ‘risk group’. Consequently, substantial prevention efforts are required for formally
low educated male young drivers in particular. Prospective drivers also display more favourable attitudes
and perceptions of drink-driving and drug-driving. These may decrease, however, due to influences of
driving school instruction and the experience of actual responsibilities when driving a borrowed or even
one’s own car. Nevertheless, survey results suggest that earlier recommendations to begin with DUIrelated prevention communication at developmental stages occurring before obtaining a driver’s license
are important: If the initial attitude pattern of beginning drivers has been affected in a desirable way prior
to license acquisition and/or in the role of fellow passengers, behavioural risks of alcohol and drug
consumption should decrease (compared to today’s level) in future active young drivers.
Those survey components that built on the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein & Capella, 2006)
revealed that cognitive-motivational roots of DUI-related behaviours are manifold: Some relatively positive
attitudes towards drink-driving and drug-driving were observed (e.g., “I would never renounce alcohol or
drugs, only because I have to driver a car.” or “The danger of accidents will increase, if the driver drinks
alcohol or consumes drugs.”) quite permissive social norms (e.g., occurrence of drink-driving/drug-driving
among peers) support perceptions of ‘normality’ and ‘manageability’ of DUI behaviours. Indications for
biased self-efficacy expectations (in the sense of “I am confident that I can drive my car when I am
73
drunk”) were less salient in the data. These findings suggest that future campaigns should address
attitudes and social norms related to DUI-behaviours and at the same time strengthen self-efficacy
expectations towards avoiding DUI circumstances. However, a ‘translation’ of these survey findings into
the perspective of situation dynamics is required: Positive attitudes increase the likelihood that young
drivers will engage in drinking and/or drug consumption (e.g., at parties) and accept driving home under
the influence of such substances as cost for the valued benefits of consumption (Harre, 2000). Social
norms data suggest that situations where peer dynamics push young drivers towards steering a car (with
additional passengers) although they have consumed alcohol and/or drugs and even if their own attitudes
contradict such a decision.
Survey data revealed that young people accept DUI-related behaviours to a greater or lesser extend
depending on the concrete behaviour in question. Those behavioural patters which are accepted more
than others by the target audience provide useful advice for risk communication messages. On this basis,
for a content strategy the following key-messages can be recommended:
• Even a smaller amount of alcohol affects driving skills.
• Painkillers can affect driving skills strongly as well!
• If alcohol is considered to be essential for a party, alternatives to driving home by car should be
sought (and can be found!) in advance.
• Fellow-passengers should feel responsible for road safety in DUI contexts as well.
• Dare to voice your concerns in potential drink-driving or drug-driving situations among peers!
Campaign strategies building on “Theory of planned behaviour”-related survey findings (see Fishbein &
Capella, 2006) thus need to model the situation-related implications of respondents’ statements and to
affect those pre-driving situations in which attitudes and social norms manifest dynamic, escalating
effects.
4.1.4 Aims of risk communication
The major aim of risk communication is to sensitize young adults to the dangers of driving under the
influence of drugs or alcohol as a main risk factor for accident causation and to motivate them, to start a
discussion on this topic. The results of the survey show that friends are the most important conversational
partners concerning issues of alcohol, drugs and driving. One can assume, that this holds true for other
road transport related issues. Even if this is a very important pre-condition, this does not necessarily imply
that these issues are actually discussed in the peer group. As long as no road safety problem is
perceived, there is no need to discuss this. Therefore it is essential to make road safety issues relevant
and attractive for the target group.
4.1.5 Communication patterns in online-communities
The results of the survey show that 58 % of the target group make use of the internet several times a day.
The most frequent use is for e-mail-contacts and chatting (69 %), followed by visiting the profiles of other
users (68 %), searching for old or new contacts (64 %), commenting (51 %), download and sharing of
images, videos or music (36 %), conversation in online-groups (36 %) and information search (31 %).
This high popularity of interpersonal and in-group communication offers good opportunities for risk
communication campaigns. However, only 5 % of the respondents follow posted or advertised links. This
result implies that a strategy to provide road-safety messages mainly via links would be rather weak.
Everybody, who wants to communicate in a social network, has to register his private profile to become
part of the network. Whether the target group will visit a certain profile or not, depends on the group
specific design of the profile as well as the presented content.
An important result from the survey is the low percentage of users (5 %) that follow posted or advertised
links in online-communities. This confirms the necessity, to take into account the rules and peculiarities of
online-communities while launching road-safety relevant messages. In advance to practical
implementation of measures, pre-tests should be conducted within the target group to assess the level of
acceptance of a certain measure. Furthermore, a process-evaluation is recommended to specifically
optimize the campaign whenever it is necessary.
74
To make use of the internet platforms “facebook” or “YouTube”, certain characteristics of the portals
should be taken into account. For the implementation of a facebook-profile it is important, to develop a
concept, which on one hand provides information about road-safety and on the other hand pays attention
to the motivation of the target group, willing to be entertained. The need to be entertained could be
satisfied in various ways. There might for instance be a chat-room, where user could freely complain
about reckless drivers and vent their anger. Or a forum, in which drivers could discuss all about cars and
driving. It is very important, to provide information with immediate, practical benefits for the user. It would
be unrealistic to believe, facebook-users would gladly and often visit a profile, which solely offers
information on dangers in traffic and how to deal with them.
Other than on facebook, the users of the video portal „YouTube“ do not primarily interact with each other
or communicate directly. Even if it is generally possible for „YouTube“-users to exchange opinions and
give comments, the main focus is on the presentation und reception of videos. That means, in order to be
retrieved a video-clip with road-safety messages should be creatively designed, attractive to the target
group and with interesting content.
Findings on young people’s media habits converge with previous audience research in suggesting that
online media, social network sites in particular, are an important platform for daily communication, both
interpersonal contact and mass media reception. Thus, new risk communication approaches should shift
from traditional linear communication strategies to dialogue oriented strategies relying on
recommendations, discourses and follow-up-communication among the members of target audiences.
While competition for young people’s attention within social network sites and for ‘viral’ distribution of
(advertising) messages is fierce, future DUI-related campaigns should establish a systematically planned
element covering the major social networks. This is particularly relevant for reaching out to prospective
drivers, as today’s younger people display even stronger affinity towards social network sites than today’s
drivers. A promising strategy will thereby focus on opinion leaders among the target groups who initiate
communication both in social networks and in interpersonal constellations and are credible role models
for those who are more difficult to reach and to activate by campaign messages. How such a ‘facebook’strategy should look like, may in parts be concluded from survey findings on content preferences;
however, consulting with professional (advertising) creative experts is necessary in any case in order to
succeed in social network campaigning.
The analysis of the content domains young and prospective drivers are interested in when being online
revealed a great diversity of appealing topics. Music and entertainment domains were found to be
particularly popular; health topics in contrast do not seem to be sufficiently attractive in order to build on
young people’s interest in transporting DUI-related messages. Given the concentration of DUI-risks in
young men, topics that may provide effective contexts for reaching this target audience online are the
same as in conventional mass media: Cars/motorsports, sports, computer and technology are named
quite frequently by young men (as opposed to young women). Campaign strategies linking risk messages
to general topics of interest can benefit from these findings in adjusting the thematic ‘carrier environment’
to the preferences of (young male) target audiences.
4.1.6 Credibility of the communicators
Various questions on young people’s preferences for conversation partners and media people speaking
about DUI-related topics have brought forth very interesting findings. In terms of interpersonal
conversation, “alcohol, drugs, and driving” is most frequently named a topic that young people discuss
with their peers, including romantic partners. Parents and siblings play a less important, but still relevant
role; institutional agents such as sports coaches or doctors do not seem to function as effective
messengers for conversation-based campaign approaches. With regard to media people, the assumption
that entertainment celebrities such as musicians would be judged as particularly credible endorsers of risk
communication was falsified. Clearly, respondents assigned the most credibility to (young) people with
personal experiences with alcohol and/or drugs. Experts and counsellors were also rated as acceptable;
celebrities from various show businesses, in contrast, did not achieve substantial acceptance rates. Thus,
exemplification (Zillmann & Brosius, 2000) – the appearance of individuals with theme-related stories to
tell – emerges as promising pathway for DRUID campaign content. Experimental findings on the
comparison of different kinds of celebrities who endorse a DUI-related risk message only partially
converge with these results: Music stars with a drug abuse history were not considered as credible
sources, whereas clear-of-drugs celebrities from sports (Philipp Lahm) and music (Lena Meyer-Landruth)
received substantial better evaluations when they appeared as endorsers. On the other hand, celebrities
75
with drug affinity seem to have the capacity to surprise and thereby may draw attention on the topic even
among those who are disinterested and especially difficult to reach by preventive messages. It has to be
considered, that a mere picture combined with a slogan may not be put on the same level with personal
DUI experience communicated via mass media. Personal experiences are comprised of more relevant
and complex information than a mere picture, which reflects only a simple image of a person. Part of the
communication of personal experiences may be for instance strategies and efforts to solve the problem.
This and the results oft he efforts (with or without success) seem to be important criteria for the
assessment of credibility.
This set of results allows drawing conclusions on campaign strategy in terms of the definition of target
groups who can serve as multipliers in conversation-based approaches (i.e., peer-oriented diffusion
strategies) and who could support the campaign through media appearances (i.e., non-celebrity
individuals with personal stories about alcohol, drugs and driving, or clear-of-drugs celebrities such as
Philipp Lahm).
4.1.7 Communication strategy
It has to be clarified in advance, which type of communication strategy (confronting vs. non-confronting)
should be preferred. The already positive experiences with confronting, fear-arousal communication (as
for instance with the German national campaign ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’)) should be taken into
account.
4.2 Conclusions
Main requirements for successful risk communication are a theoretical framework and empirical data,
which both have to be taken into account in planning and implementation of measures. To rely on expert
knowledge alone is insufficient, when it comes to decide on appropriate communication channels and
approaches for certain target groups. For this decision it is essential to conduct target group specific
research, so called social marketing research. Consolidated scientifically based knowledge is a
mandatory requirement, which allows to draw concise pictures of the people within a specific target
group, including their motives, attitudes and expectations as well as their „social addresses“. The latter
opens the opportunity to tell, where and how these people live, where they can be met, the characteristics
of their peer group, their available financial resources, their status of employment and education and their
characteristic lifestyle.
For the investigation of a certain target group an appropriate theoretical approach is required, which
enables to control the predictors and thus defines the return of empirical findings. This is necessary to
guarantee, that the subsequent social marketing is based on relevant road-safety knowledge about the
target group. Prior to initiating any measures it is mandatory to define and describe the target group as
precisely as possible. This, too, includes knowledge about the risk exposure and additional relevant
attributes of the target group, as for instance the communication patterns in online-communities as well
as the perceived credibility of the communicator of road-safety messages. The intended measures will be
directed by the precise definition of their goal and will be implemented by the selected communication
strategy.
Planning with different risk groups according to DUI-affinity, their demographic differences, their
characteristics of being a young driver already or still a prospective driver, their average formal education
and their communication preferences and readiness may allow tailoring DUI-related risk messages in a
way that improves overall prevention success. This is most important with regard to the ‘double risk’
group of young people with an affinity towards both alcohol and drugs, as the probability of accident
involvement of this risk group is already high. Fast and substantial prevention success could thus be
achieved with an effective, tailored risk communication campaign targeting this subaudience. With the
present survey data, important planning foundations for such a tailored approach have been made
available.
Whether measures of social marketing will actually show the desired results should always be assessed
by means of a subsequent evaluation. With the completion of the respective evaluation, the scientifically
based implementation of road-safety measures will have come to full circle, starting with the definition of
the problem, followed by target group research and development of measures. At this point there will be
the opportunity to improve the measures and to adjust possible short-comings. Depending on the
evaluation results, another research process may be initiated with a new problem definition.
76
The method of a scientific-based development, implementation and evaluation of road safety measures
for young drivers as described in this report is transferable to all European countries. Limitations can be
expected to exist for certain country specific findings about the target group. To what extent one ore more
of the results of this report are directly transferable or not, has to be verified case wise. Nevertheless,
specific findings in one country may provide important clues for road safety measures in other countries.
Cultural as well as legal differences and peculiarities, which may be typical for some countries but
atypical for others, can only be detected by separate country specific research. The questionnaire from
this project may serve as input for a national survey. The present results for Germany provide a solid
base for other European countries, to design, develop and implement appropriate risk communication on
driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol for the target group of 15 to 24 year olds.
European institutions involved in the promotion of road safety and reduced accident risks are facing
enormous challenges. Consumption of alcohol, drugs, and medicines by (young) drivers remains a key
problem in this domain. Understanding the underlying processes of attitude formation and social
dynamics of consumption prior to driving situations is therefore a continuous task. Understanding the
knowledge and motivation base as well as the communication preferences and patterns of young people
is necessary to make solid plans for future prevention campaigns, both in terms of message content and
message channels or platforms. To both ends, the present report provides rich empirical insight. It is the
responsibility of authorities and research institutions alike to exploit this empirical knowledge base and to
create effective means of prevention communication that ultimately saves the lives of young people on
the road.
77
5 References
5.1 Publications
Anderson, D. (2011). Persuasion and motivational messaging. In B.E. Portner (ed.), Handbook of traffic
psychology (pp. 423-439). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Christ, R., Delhomme, P. Et al. (1999). Investigations on Influences on driver behaviour - Safety
Approaches in Comparison and Combination. Austrian Road Safety Board, Vienna.
Fishbein, M. & Capella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications.
Journal of Communication, 56 (Supp. 1): 1-17.
Gelau, C. & Pfafferott, I. (2009). Verhaltensbeeinflussung durch Sicherheitskommunikation und
Verkehrsüberwachung. In H-P Krüger (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Anwendungsfelder der
Verkehrspsychologie, Bd. 2. Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag.
Harre, N. (2000): Risk evaluation, Driving, and Adolescents. A Typology. Developmental Review, 20 (2),
206-226.
Holte, H. (2011). Lifestyles of young drivers in relation to driving under the influence of drugs and
alcohol (Working title). Unpublished data in press 2011, Federal Highway Institute Germany
Medienpsychologischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (Hrsg.) (2010). JIM 2010. Jugend, Information,
(Multi-)Media. Stuttgart: Forschungsberichte MPFS.
Nell, V. (2002). Why young men drive dangerously: Implications for injury prevention. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 11 (2) 75-79.
Odgen, E. & Moskowitz, H. (2004). Effects of alcohol and other drugs on driver performance. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 5 (3), 185-198.
Schulze, H (1999). Lebensstil, Freizeitstil und Verkehrsverhalten 18–34-jähriger Verkehrsteilnehmer.
Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Mensch und Sicherheit, M103. Bremerhaven:
Wirtschaftsverlag NW.
Valkenburg, P. & Peter, J. (2009). Social consequences of the internet for adolescents: A decade of
research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 (1), 1-5.
Zillmann, D. & Brosius, H-B. (Eds.). (2000). Exemplification in communication. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
5.2 DRUID Deliverables
(D x.x.x stands for the number of a Deliverable in the DRUID project)
All published Deliverables can be downloaded from the DRUID website: www.druid-project.org
D 1.1.2
Berghaus, G, Sticht, G, Grellner, W (2010): Meta-analysis of empirical studies concerning the effects of
medicines and illegal drugs including pharmacokinetics on safe driving. DRUID (Driving under the
Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable 1.1.2
D 1.1.2B
Schnabel , E, Hargutt, V, Krüger H.-P. (2010): Meta-analysis of empirical studies concerning the effects of
alcohol on safe driving. DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th
Framework programme. Deliverable 1.1.2B
D 1.2.1
The influence of stimulant drugs on actual and simulated driving. This deliverable will incorporate all
studies from task 1.2 on stimulant substances. DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and
Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable unpublished.
D 2.2.1
78
Forward S. (2010): Motives behind risky driving – driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. DRUID
(Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable
2.2.1
D 2.2.2
Walter M., Hargutt V., Krüger H.-P. (2011): Prevalence of psychoactive substances and consumption
patterns in traffic, based on a smartphone survey in Germany. DRUID (Driving under the Influence of
Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable 2.2.2
D 2.2.3 DRAFT
Prevalence of alcohol and other psychoactive substances in drivers in traffic in general in 13 countries.
DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme.
Deliverable unpublished
D 2.2.4
Amoros E., Gadegbeku B. And the SAM Group (2010): Prevalence study: Main illicit psychoactive
substances among all drivers involved in fatal road crashes in France. DRUID (Driving under the
Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable 2.2.4
D 2.2.5
Isalberti C., Van der Linden T., Legrand S.-A., Verstraete A. (Ghent University, Belgium); Bernhoft I., Hels
T., Olesen M. (Technical University of Denmark, Denmark); Houwing S., Houtenbos M., Mathijssen R.
(SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, the Netherlands) (2011): Prevalence of alcohol and other
psychoactive substances in injured and killed drivers. DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs,
Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme. Deliverable 2.2.5
D 2.3.2
Gadegbeku B., Emmanuelle Amoros1e. and the SAM group (2010): Relative risk estimates for alcohol
and other psychoactive substances impaired drivers in fatal accidents, based on the responsibility
approach in France – DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th
Framework programme. Deliverable 2.3.2
D 2.3.3
Laapotti, S. & Keskinen, E. University of Turku, Department of Psychology, Finland: Relative risk of
impaired drivers who were killed in motor vehicle accidents in Finland. DRUID (Driving under the
Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme.Deliverable 2.3.3
D 2.3.4
Thorsteinsdóttir K., Mühlhäußer J., Paul L., Lottner S., Schick S., Hell W. (2006): Responsibility study:
Psychoactive substances among killed drivers in Germany,
Lithuania, Hungary and Slovakia DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines).
6th Framework programme. Deliverable 2.3.4
D 2.3.5 DRAFT
Relative accident risk for impaired drivers based on case-control studies
DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework programme.
Deliverable unpublished.
D 5.1.1
Boets S., Meesmann U. ,Klipp S., Bukasa B., Braun E., Panosch E., Wenninger U., Rösner S., Kraus L.,
Assailly J.-P. (2008): State of the Art on Driver Rehabilitation. Literature Analysis & Provider Survey.
DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines). 6th Framework
programme.Deliverable 5.1.1
79
Conflict of interests
The authors of the study declare there is no conflict of interest
80
Appendix A: Participant List Expert Workshop
Dr. Eva Baumann
Institut für Journalistik und Kommunikationsforschung
Hochschule für Musik, Theater und Medien Hannover
Hannover
Norbert Beuchel-Wagner
Drogenhilfe Köln gGmbH
Fachstelle für Suchtprävention
Hürth
Wolfgang Blindenbacher
TISPOL
Geldern
Carla Bormann
Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat
Bonn
Ute Hammer
Bonn
Michael Fingskes
Verkehrspädagoge
Essen
Dr. Volker Hargutt
IZVW
Würzburg
Michael Heißing
Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen
Bergisch-Gladbach
Hardy Holte
Bergisch-Gladbach
Dipl. Soz. Rolf Hoppe
Planungsgesellschaft Verkehr Köln
Hoppe & Co. GmbH
Köln
Uta Meesmann
Belgisch Instituut voor de Verkeersveiligheid
Brüssel
Belgien
Herr Martin Mönnighoff
Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei
Münster
Marion Pieper-Nagel
Bonn
81
Thomas Rathgeb
Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund SW
Landesanstalt für Kommunikation (LFK)
Stuttgart
Dr. Horst Schulze
Bergisch-Gladbach
Colette See
Hamburgische Landesstelle für Suchtfragen eV
Hamburg
Evelin Strüber
Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung
Köln
Anne Tekaat
Planungsgesellschaft Verkehr Köln
Hoppe & Co. GmbH
Köln
82
Appendix B: Questionnaire (Translation)
1)
People respond differently, when new trends and fashions are coming up. Some immediately go with
the trend, others tend to wait and see, if the trend will establish. How do you act usually? Do you
belong rather to the first or to the second group?
• rather to the first group
• rather to the second group
• it depends
• I don’t go with trends
• I don’t know
2)
Do you know many or few people?
• quite a lot
• several
• few
3)
How often do you go out or spend leisure time with your friends? Would you say...
• daily, almost daily
• 2-3 times a week
• once a week
• 2-3 times a moth
• once a month
• less often
• no answer
4)
Please have look at the following things that people sometimes do For each of these behaviors,
would you say that it is o.k. in any case, or that one must not do this under any circumstance, or
somewhere in between? Please use this picture sheet: “1” would mean that one must not do this
under any circumstance; 10 would mean that is o.k. in any case.
a) breaking a promise
b) driving a car although one has drunken too much
c) paying no fare for public transport, fare-dodging
d) taking drugs like marijuana or hashish
e) keeping money one has found
f) lying for one’s own advantage
g) driving a car although one has consumed drugs
h) stealing something small from a store
i) black labor
k) driving a car faster than allowed
l) not reporting a damage one has caused in a parked car
5)
In general, what would you say is your most important source of information, if you like to be
informed about current events?
• television
• radio
• newspaper
• internet
• no answer
6)
On average, how many hours do you watch TV on a normal weekday – from Monday to Friday?
Would you say...
• less than one hour
• about one hour
• about two hours
• about three hours
• about four hours
• more than four hours
• I never watch TV
7)
How often do you use the internet? Would you say...
• several times a day
83
•
•
•
•
•
•
once a day
several times a week
once a week
less often
never
no answer
8)
One can find information on the internet on almost any topic. If you think of your own internet use:
Which topics are you most interested in?
• politics and world affairs
• partnership and love
• music
• fun and comedy
• cars and motorsports
• environment and nature
• sports (except motorsports)
• cinema
• culture, theatre, festivals
• computer
• technology
• travel
• economy
• job and career
• news about VIP’s and celebrities
• local events
• fitness and nutrition
• fashion and styling
• health topics
• weather
• practical pieces of advice for every day live (e.g. consumer advices)
• none of these
• no answer
9)
There are many different ways how to use the internet. On this list you can see some of them. Which
of these do you use rather frequently?
• writing and reading e-mails
• just surfing on the internet
• chatting or instant messaging (e.g. ICQ, MSN, Messenger)
• online-games, computer games via internet
• using online-communities (e.g. facebook, studiVZ, schülerVZ) for private purposes
• using online communities (e.g. Xing, LinkedIn) for work-related purposes
• watching or downloading films/videos (e.g. youtube, myvideo)
• uploading films/videos (e.g. via youtube, myvideo)
• listening or downloading music, sound files (e.g. Musicload, iTunes)
• uploading music, sound files (e.g. via musicload, iTunes)
• downloading or uploading pictures (e.g. via Flickr)
• managing or sharing bookmark collections
• reading or writing articles in blogs and wikis
• comparing prices, reading rankings, ratings and test reports
• online shopping
• searching information for school, education or the job
• watching TV via internet
• listening to radio via internet
•
•
none of these
no answer
10) On the internet, there are so-called online communities like facebook or studiVZ. People can register
and then communicate with friends and other community-members. Do you use one or more of such
online-communities for private purposes?
• yes, I use one
• yes, I use several
84
•
no, that is not the case
11) If you use online communities like facebook for private purposes, which features do you prefer,
which do you use quite frequently? Please tell me according to this list!
• viewing the profiles of other community members
• searching for information about interesting topics and events
• searching for people I know and new contacts
• updating my profile to keep others informed about myself and my activities
• posting comments on other members’ bulletin boards or in their guest-books
• sending private messages to other community members or chatting with other members
• uploading or forwarding pictures, videos or music files
• having conversations in online-groups
• following interesting links, which are recommended by other community members
•
•
none of these
no answer
12) In the public sphere and in the media a lot of different people and groups express their views. Please
think of some serious issues like health-risks of smoking, diseases like AIDS, juvenile crime or the
risks of alcohol and drug intake: Who is credible in your opinion?
• prominent sportsmen
• prominent musicians
• well-known actors
• young people in general
• people, who have gained personal experience with the subject matter
• politicians
• experts, e.g. scientists
• representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• representatives of counselling or public service- centers
• hosts, journalists of science programs in the media
•
•
13A)
none of these
no answer
Let’s talk about road traffic now: Do you have a motorcycle driver’s license or a driver’s license for
a moped or a motor scooter or do you have none of these licenses? This excludes driver’s licenses
for cars which come with the authorization to ride a moped and motor scooter as well.
• yes, motorbike
• yes, moped/motor scooter
• no, I don’t have none of these driver’s licenses
13B)
•
•
And do you have a driver’s license for cars or is this not the case?
yes, I have a driver’s license for cars
no, that is not the case
14) Are you currently attending a driving school in order to obtain a driver’s license for cars?
• Yes
• No
15) What kind of driver’s license have you obtained or are you working on right now? A “normal“ driver’s
license for people aged 18 or older, on or a so-called “graduated license”, which allows you to
receive the driver’s license with 17 , but until the 18th birthday driving is only permitted with adult
guidance.
• normal driver’s license for people aged 18 and older
• guided driving
16A)
16B)
Interviewer record: Has the interviewee got a motorcycle, moped or motor scooter driver’s
license?
• Yes
• No
Are you driving with a motorcycle, moped or motor scooter on a regular basis?
85
•
•
•
Yes, I ride a motorbike
Yes I ride a moped/motor scooter
No, I do not ride on a regular basis
17) How many thousand kilometres a year do you drive with a motorcycle, moped or motor scooter? It
doesn’t matter if you drive with your own vehicles or others, so in total how many kilometres do you
drive? What would you say...
• less than 1000 kilometres
• 1000 to 3000 kilometres
• more than 20000 kilometres
• have not been driving for a long time
18A)
•
•
Interviewer record: Has the interviewee got a driver’s license for cars?
Yes
No
•
•
Are you driving a car on a regular basis or not?
yes, I drive a car
no, I don’t drive on a regular basis
18B)
Since when are you driving a car on a regular basis?
• Since about___ years
• I don’t know/ no answer
19) How many thousand kilometres a year do you drive with a car? It doesn’t matter if you drive with
your own vehicle or others, so in total how many kilometres do you drive? What would you say…
• less than 1000 kilometres
• more than 20000 kilometres
• have not been driving for a long time
20) Have you got your own car or is a car available that you can use when you need it?
• Yes
• No
21)
The car you are driving, which brand is it?
_________
• No answer
22) Have you been involved in a road accident (with a car, motorcycle, moped or bicycle) in the past
three years?
• yes
• no
23) How many times have you been involved in a road accident in the past three years?
• once
• twice
• three times
• more than three times,_______ times
• I don’t know/ no answer
23a) With what kind of vehicle have you been involved in the accident? Was it a car, a motorcycle, a
moped or a bicycle?
• car
• motorcycle
• moped
86
•
•
bicycle
no answer
23A) And can you tell me how many accidents happened with each vehicle?
___ car accidents
___ motorcycle accidents
___ moped accidents
___ bicycle accidents
• no answer
23b) Could you please tell me if you have caused the accident? Were you guilty or complicit or not to
blame for it?
• guilty
• complicit
• not to blame for it
• no answer
23B)
If you think about the last/recent accidents you were involved within the past three years: How
many of these accidents have you caused on your own, have been guilty or complicit?
____ accidents caused
• none of them
• no answer
24) Has this ever happened to you? You were about to join a car ride or were in a car, and the driver had
drunk quite some alcohol, has that never happened to you?
• it happened several times
• it happened one time
• it never happened
• no answer
How was that the last time when you noticed this, how did you deal with the situation? Did you get off
the car or refuse to get in, did you address the driver on this, or did you do nothing at all?
• got out
• didn’t even get in the car
• talked to the driver but stayed in the car for the ride
• did nothing
• no answer
25) Although this is sometimes hard to say for sure, has it ever happened to you that you were about to
join a car ride or were in a car, and the driver had consumed medicines or drugs like strong
soporifics, painkillers, hashish, marijuana, ecstasy or something similar, or has that never happened
to you?
• Yes, it happened several times
• Yes, it happened one time
• it never happened
• No answer
How was that the last time when you noticed this, how did you deal with the situation? Did you get off
the car or refuse to get in, did you address the driver on this, or did you do nothing at all?
• got out
• didn’t even get in the car
• talked to the driver but stayed in the car for the ride
• did nothing
• no answer
26A)
Please imagine that five brochures with these headlines are lying on a table in a doctor’s waiting
room. Which brochure will you grab, which one is the most interesting to you?
1) How can I as passenger find out if my driver has drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
2) How much alcohol and drugs are permitted, if I want to drive a car?
3) How dangerous are alcohol and drugs when driving a car?
4) How do alcohol and drugs affect drivers’ attention?
5) How can I avoid driving a car under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
87
•
•
none of them
no answer
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
•
•
And which brochure is the least interesting to you?
How can I as passenger find out if my driver has drunk alcohol or taken drugs?
How much alcohol and drugs are permitted, if I want to drive a car?
How dangerous are alcohol and drugs when driving a car?
How do alcohol and drugs affect drivers’ attention?
How can I avoid driving a car under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
none of them
no answer
•
•
•
•
Do you think about alcohol and drug consumption in road traffic a lot, a bit or not at all?
think about it a lot
think about it a bit
don't think about it at all
undecided, no answer
•
•
•
•
Do you think about young people's alcohol and drug consumption a lot, a bit or not at all?
think about it a lot
think about it a bit
don't think about it at all
26B)
27A)
27B)
28) At the moment a campaign is being planed that will warn young people about alcohol and drugs
when driving. Could you imagine to support this campaign, to do something for it, or would you say
that this would be nothing for you?
• I could imagine it
• would be nothing for me
• undecided, no answer
Assuming that you decided to support this campaign. What would you do most likely to contribute?
Please look at the list and tell me.
• bring the campaign to the attention of friends and people I know
• attaching flyers to cars
• serving at an information desk
• forwarding links
• organising a talk session in a youth centre
•
•
•
other_____
none of these
I don’t know
29) Who would you talk to about experiences, personal problems or questions about alcohol and drugs
in road traffic? Who would be your preferred partner for such a conversation?
• partner
• male friend/ female friend
• parents
• siblings
• other members of the family
• coach in a sports club
• teachers and docents
• doctor
• people in an online community
• searching anonymously for advice on the internet
• others....
• wouldn’t talk to anyone
• no answer
30) A campaign against has been going on for some time now. Promotion for this campaign is on
posters at roadsides, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, radio commercials and cinema
88
spots. Have you ever heard of this campaign called ‘Slow down’ (‘Runter vom Gas’)? Or is it the first
time you learn something about this campaign?
• already heard about it
• learn about it for the first time
• undecided, no answer
31) I have got a poster here, which could appear at a roadside. Please have a close look at the poster.
All in all, how much do you like this poster? Please tell me according to this sheet with black and
white boxes. You can choose between +5, which means that you like the poster very much, and -5,
which means that you don’t like it all. Which box do you select?
-5/ -4/ -3/ -2/-1/ 0 / +1/+2/+3/+4/+5
• no answer
32) On these cards, a few things are noted that one could state about this poster. Please distribute these
cards on this sheet, according to whether the statement applies to full extent in your view, or applies
to quite some degree, or applies to partial degree, or does not apply to some degree, or does not
apply at all. Please set aside cards with statements that you cannot judge.
1) appeals to me
2) credible
3) surprising
4) teaching-style, over-instructive
5) makes one think
6) arousing
7) embarrassing, ridiculous
8) informative
33) Do you happen to know the name of the person who is shown on the poster?
• Yes, this is_____________
• No I don’t know
• no answer
34) Here you find some statements others made in the context of alcohol, drugs, and road traffic. Please
distribute the cards on this sheet, according to the extent to which you agree with each statement.
Please set aside cards with statements that you cannot judge.
(scale: applies to full extent, applies to quite some degree, applies to partial degree, does not apply
to some degree, does not apply at all)
1) For some parties, alcohol is simply essential, even if one has to drive a car later on.
2) Drinking alcohol or taking drugs and then driving a car – no way!
3) After one or two beers or a glass of wine, one surely can still drive a car.
4) After smoking a joint, one is still able to drive a car.
5) The danger of accidents will increase, if the driver drinks alcohol or consumes drugs.
6) I would never renounce alcohol or drugs, only because I have to drive a car.
7) If one takes certain drugs, one even feels particularly fit behind the wheel.
8) Most of my friends say that alcohol in road traffic should be avoided.
9) A lot of friends of mine would drive a car, although they have had quite some drinks or have
taken drugs.
10) I am confident to drive a car safely, also if I have had several drinks.
11) Painkillers do not affect me when I am driving a car.
12) It would be easy for me to renounce alcohol and drugs, if I had to drive a car.
13) If I have to drive a car, I strictly keep away from drugs and alcohol.
14) If a party comes up, I’ll make a plan in advance how to get home safely.
15) If somebody gives me a lift, I feel a responsibility for the driver’s safety.
16) I would rather take a taxi or walk home instead of joining a ride with somebody who drank
alcohol or took drugs.
17) If I drank too much alcohol or took drugs on a party, I would rather leave my car and walk home
instead or join a ride with somebody.
18) I know some people who quite often drive a car when they are drunk.
19) It’s fun driving a car, if you drunk a little.
35) Finally a last question about driving a car. From your point of view, who is a better car driver? Men or
women, or do both drive a car equally well?
89
•
•
•
•
men
women
both equal
Statistics
1) gender
• male
• female
2)
age
__ years
3)
Which level of education have you completed?
• I left school without secondary modern school qualification / Volksschulabschluss
• I have got a degree from a school for people with special needs
• I have a secondary modern school qualification / Volksschulabschluss
• I left middle school, polytechnische Oberschule or a similar school without a secondary school
certification
• I have got secondary school certification
• I have got partial university entrance admission certificate (Fachhochschulreife)
• I have got higher education entrance qualification or subject-bound university entrance
qualification
• I completed a study at university, college or university of cooperative education
4)
Are you employed?
• yes
• yes, helping in own business
• in vocational training
• unemployed
• housewife/ househusband
• pupil
• student
• no occupation
Could you tell me based on this list, to which of the following branch of industry your company
belong to.
• agriculture, forestry, fishing,
• energy, water supply, mining
• chemical industry, polymer processing
• steel Construction, engineering, vehicle construction
• electrical engineering
• timber, paper or printing industry
• clothing trade
• food industries
• building industry
• trade (retail and wholesale)
• transportation
• telecommunications
• finance and insurance
• other services
• public or non-profit organisation ( e.g. authorities, churches)
• other
5)
What is your own current net income? Please look at this list and tell me in which group you are.
A less than 500 Euro
B 500 – 749 Euro
C 750 – 999 Euro
D 1.000 – 1.249 Euro
E 1.250 – 1.499 Euro
F 1.500 – 1.749 Euro
90
G
H
I
K
L
M
1.750 – 1.999 Euro
2.000 – 2.499 Euro
2.500 – 2.999 Euro
3.000 – 3.499 Euro
3.500 Euro and more
I don’t have any income
6a) Are you living in a multi-person household or do you live alone?
• multi-person household
• alone
6b) How many Persons – children and adults together – live in your household, including yourself?
• 2 persons
• 3 persons
• 4 persons
• 5 persons
• more than 5 persons
7)
How many persons in the household are employed or have another income like pension or rent
income?
___ persons
• only one person
8)
If you sum up the income of all members of your household. What is your current monthly household
net income? Please look at this list and tell me in which group you are.
A less than 500 Euro
B 500 – 749 Euro
C 750 – 999 Euro
D 1.000 – 1.249 Euro
E 1.250 – 1.499 Euro
F 1.500 – 1.749 Euro
G 1.750 – 1.999 Euro
H 2.000 – 2.499 Euro
I 2.500 – 2.999 Euro
K 3.000 – 3.499 Euro
L 3.500 Euro and more
9)
Are you living in your parents’ household or not anymore?
• yes, I live at my parents’ house
• no, not anymore
Questionnaire in written form
1)
A lot of people like alcohol, others do not mind about it. How about you? How often do you drink
alcohol?
• daily, almost daily
• 2-3 times a week
• once a week
• 2-3 times a month
• once a month
• less often
• no answer
2)
If you go out at the weekend: How much alcohol do you usually drink in a night? Could you please
guess and write down how many glasses beer, wine or liquor or cocktails and longdrinks you
approximately drink in a night?
• wine 0,2 l
• beer 0,33 l
• liquor 0,02l
• cocktails/longdrinks 0,3l
91
3)
Has it ever happened to you, that you were driving a car, although you had drunken too much
alcohol, or has it never happened before?
• it happened
• never happened
• don’t have a driver’s license
4)
A question about soporific, tranquilizers, or drugs: Do you take one of these?
• I have taken one of these
• Never / only once /several times
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5)
strong soporific
strong tranquilizer
hashish, marijuana
LSD
cocaine
heroine
crack
ecstasy (XTC)
speed
others_______
Has it ever happened that you were driving a car, although you have taken one of these drugs?
• it happened
• never happened
• don’t have a driver’s license
92
Appendix C: Questionnaire (Original Version)
INSTITUT FÜR DEMOSKOPIE ALLENSBACH
A'
Umfrage 6219
Juni 2011
Für Formulierung und Anordnung
alle Rechte beim IfD !
C071
FB-NR
INTERVIEWER: Fragen wörtlich vorlesen. Bitte die Buchstaben oder Zahlen neben zutreffenden Antworten
einkreisen. Wenn keine Antworten vorgegeben sind, auf den punktierten Linien Antworten
im Wortlaut eintragen. Alle Ergebnisse dieser Umfrage dienen dazu, die Meinung der Bevölkerung zu erforschen und besser bekanntzumachen.
1.
T
"Wenn eine neue Mode herauskommt, dann reagieren
die Menschen ja verschieden. Die einen machen die
neue Mode gleich mit, wenn sie ihnen gefällt.
Die anderen warten lieber etwas ab, um zu sehen, ob
sich die neue Mode wirklich durchsetzt. Würden Sie
sich eher zu den ersten oder zu den zweiten rechnen?"
EHER ZU DEN ERSTEN .........................
EHER ZU DEN ZWEITEN.......................
KOMMT DARAUF AN............................
RICHTE MICH NICHT NACH DER
MODE...............................................
WEISS NICHT ........................................
2.
T
"Haben Sie viele oder wenige Bekannte?"
VIEL ........................................................ 1
MITTEL ................................................... 2
WENIG.................................................... 3
09
3.
T
"Wie oft unternehmen Sie etwas mit Ihren Freunden,
Bekannten? Würden Sie sagen ..."
"täglich, fast täglich" .............................
"2-, 3-mal in der Woche" .......................
"einmal in der Woche" ..........................
"2-, 3-mal im Monat".............................
"einmal im Monat"................................
"seltener" ...............................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
10
4.
1
2
3
08
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTERVIEWER überreicht graues Bildblatt 1 !
T
"Könnten Sie mir bitte für jeden der folgenden Punkte sagen, ob Sie das in jedem Fall für in Ordnung
halten, oder unter keinen Umständen, oder irgendwo dazwischen. Gehen Sie bitte nach diesem Bildblatt
vor: 1 würde bedeuten, das darf man unter keinen Umständen tun; 10 würde bedeuten, das ist in jedem
Fall in Ordnung." (INTERVIEWER, genannte Stufe zu jedem Punkt einkreisen!)
Unter keinen
Umständen
tun
a) "Ein Versprechen brechen"..........................
T
b) "Auto fahren, obwohl man zu viel
T getrunken hat"............................................
In jedem Fall
in Ordnung
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
11
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
12
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
c) "Kein Fahrgeld in öffentlichen VerkehrsT mitteln zahlen, schwarzfahren" .................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
13
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
d) "Drogen wie Marihuana oder Haschisch
T nehmen" .....................................................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
14
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
e) "Geld behalten, das man gefunden hat"....
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
f) "Wenn man für den eigenen Vorteil lügt" ..
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
g) "Autofahren, obwohl man Drogen
genommen hat" .........................................
15
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
16
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
17
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
h) "Im Kaufhaus eine Kleinigkeit stehlen"......
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
18
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
K2
A''
Umfrage 6219
Juni 2011
C072
FB-NR
1.
T
KOMMT DARAUF AN............................
MODE...............................................
WEISS NICHT ........................................
2.
T
VIEL ........................................................ 1
MITTEL ................................................... 2
WENIG.................................................... 3
09
3.
T
"2-, 3-mal in der Woche" .......................
"2-, 3-mal im Monat".............................
"einmal im Monat"................................
"seltener" ...............................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
10
4.
1
2
3
08
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
T
Unter keinen
Umständen
tun
T
T getrunken hat"............................................
In jedem Fall
in Ordnung
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
11
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
12
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
13
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T nehmen" .....................................................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
14
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
genommen hat" .........................................
15
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
16
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
17
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
18
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
K2
B'
Umfrage 6219
Juni 2011
C073
FB-NR
1.
T
KOMMT DARAUF AN............................
MODE...............................................
WEISS NICHT ........................................
2.
T
VIEL ........................................................ 1
MITTEL ................................................... 2
WENIG.................................................... 3
09
3.
T
"2-, 3-mal in der Woche" .......................
"2-, 3-mal im Monat".............................
"einmal im Monat"................................
"seltener" ...............................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
10
4.
1
2
3
08
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
T
Unter keinen
Umständen
tun
T
T getrunken hat"............................................
In jedem Fall
in Ordnung
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
11
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
12
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
13
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T nehmen" .....................................................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
14
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
genommen hat" .........................................
15
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
16
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
17
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
18
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
K2
B''
Umfrage 6219
Juni 2011
C0741
FB-NR
1.
T
KOMMT DARAUF AN............................
MODE...............................................
WEISS NICHT ........................................
2.
T
VIEL ........................................................ 1
MITTEL ................................................... 2
WENIG.................................................... 3
09
3.
T
"2-, 3-mal in der Woche" .......................
"2-, 3-mal im Monat".............................
"einmal im Monat"................................
"seltener" ...............................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
10
4.
1
2
3
08
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
T
Unter keinen
Umständen
tun
T
T getrunken hat"............................................
In jedem Fall
in Ordnung
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
11
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
12
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
13
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T nehmen" .....................................................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
14
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
genommen hat" .........................................
15
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
16
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
17
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
18
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
K2
6219/2
4. i) "Schwarzarbeit"............................................
T
k) "Mit überhöhter Geschwindigkeit Auto
fahren" ........................................................
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
19
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
20
UNENTSCHIEDEN .................... Y
l) "Einen Schaden, den man an einem parkenT den Auto verursacht hat, nicht melden"...
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
21
UNENTSCHIEDEN ....................... Y
5.
t
"Einmal ganz allgemein gefragt:
Was, würden Sie sagen, ist Ihre wichtigste Informationsquelle, wenn Sie sich über das aktuelle
Geschehen informieren möchten?"
"Fernsehen" ...........................................
"Radio" ...................................................
"Zeitung" ................................................
"Internet" ................................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
1
2
3
4
5
22
6.
T
"Könnten Sie schätzen, wie viele Stunden Sie an einem
normalen Werktag - montags bis freitags - fernsehen,
wie viele Stunden durchschnittlich pro Tag?
Würden Sie sagen ..."
"weniger als 1 Stunde" .........................
"etwa 1 Stunde".....................................
"etwa 2 Stunden"...................................
"etwa 3 Stunden"...................................
"etwa 4 Stunden"...................................
"mehr als 4 Stunden" ............................
SEHE NIE FERN .....................................
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
23
7.
T
"Nun einige Fragen zum Internet:
Wie oft nutzen Sie das Internet? Würden Sie sagen ..."
"mehrmals täglich"................................
"einmal am Tag".....................................
"mehrmals in der Woche" .....................
"einmal in der Woche"...........................
"seltener"................................................
"nie" ........................................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
1
2
3
4
5
6**
7**
24
** Gleich übergehen zu Frage 12 !
8.
INTERVIEWER überreicht gelbe Liste 2 !
"Im Internet findet man ja zu fast allen Themen etwas. Wenn Sie einmal an Ihre eigene Nutzung des
Internets denken: Welche Themen interessieren Sie besonders? Bitte sagen Sie es mir nach dieser
Liste hier!" (Alles Genannte einkreisen!)
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
25
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 /
26
/ 21 /
27
NICHTS DAVON..................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
9.
INTERVIEWER überreicht grüne Liste 3 !
"Das Internet bietet ja verschiedene Möglichkeiten. Hier auf dieser Liste steht eine Auswahl.
Was davon nutzen Sie häufiger?" (Alles Genannte einkreisen!)
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
28
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 /
29
NICHTS DAVON..................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
10.
t
"Es gibt ja im Internet Community-Plattformen wie Facebook oder studiVZ, bei denen man sich anmelden und
sich dann mit Freunden oder anderen Mitgliedern austauschen kann. Wie ist das bei Ihnen: Nutzen Sie privat eine
oder mehrere Community-Plattformen, oder ist das nicht
der Fall?"
JA, NUTZE EINE ................................... 1
JA, NUTZE MEHRERE .......................... 2
NEIN, NICHT DER FALL ........................ 3**
K2
30
6219/3
11.
INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Liste 4 !
"Wenn Sie Online-Communities wie z.B. Facebook privat nutzen, welche Funktionen nutzen Sie
gerne, was machen Sie häufiger mal? Bitte sagen Sie es mir nach dieser Liste!"
(Alles Genannte einkreisen!)
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 /
31
NICHTS DAVON..................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... Y
12.
INTERVIEWER überreicht blaue Liste 5 !
"In der Öffentlichkeit und den Medien kommen ja ganz unterschiedliche Leute und Gruppen zu Wort.
Wenn es um ernste Themen geht, wie z.B. die Gefahren des Rauchens, Krankheiten wie AIDS,
Jugendkriminalität oder Alkohol- und Drogenkonsum: Wen halten sie da für glaubwürdig?"
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
32
NICHTS DAVON..................................... X
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... Y
13. a) "Nun zum Thema Straßenverkehr:
T
Haben Sie einen Motorrad-Führerschein, oder einen
Führerschein für ein Moped bzw. einen Motorroller,
oder haben Sie keinen dieser Führerscheine? PkwFührerscheine, mit denen man auch Moped bzw.
Motorroller fahren darf, sind hier nicht gemeint."
b) "Und haben Sie einen Pkw-Führerschein,
oder ist das nicht der Fall?"
JA, MOTORRAD .................................... 1
JA, MOPED/ROLLER ............................. 2
NEIN, KEINEN DIESER
FÜHRERSCHEINE ............................ 3
33
JA, HABE PKW-FÜHRERSCHEIN ......... 1**
NEIN, NICHT DER FALL ....................... 2
34
14.
T
"Besuchen Sie zurzeit eine Fahrschule,
um einen Pkw-Führerschein zu machen?"
JA ........................................................... 1
NEIN ...................................................... 2**
35
15.
T
"Und welchen Führerschein haben Sie gemacht bzw. machen Sie zurzeit:
den 'normalen' Führerschein ab 18 Jahre, oder das so genannte
'Begleitete Fahren', also die Möglichkeit, den FührerNORMALER FÜHRERSCHEIN AB 18 ... 3
schein schon mit 17 Jahren zu erhalten, anschließend
BEGLEITETES FAHREN ........................ 4
bis zum 18. Geburtstag aber nur in Begleitung eines
Erwachsenen fahren zu dürfen?"
16. a) INTERVIEWER-EINSTUFUNG nach Frage 13 a):
t
Hat der/die Befragte einen Motorrad-, Mopedoder Roller-Führerschein?
35
JA ........................................................... 1
NEIN ...................................................... 2**
36
** Gleich übergehen zu Frage 18 a) !
b) "Fahren Sie regelmäßig Motorrad, Moped oder
Motorroller, oder tun Sie das nicht?"
(Mehreres kann angegeben werden!)
17.
t
"Wie viel tausend Kilometer fahren Sie persönlich
pro Jahr schätzungsweise mit dem Motorrad, Moped
oder Roller? Egal, ob mit Ihrem eigenen oder einem
anderen, so insgesamt gesehen, wie viel Kilometer
fahren Sie? Würden Sie sagen ..."
JA, FAHRE MOTORRAD........................ 3
JA, FAHRE MOPED/ROLLER................. 4
NEIN, FAHRE NICHT REGELMÄSSIG .. 5
36
"Unter 1.000 Kilometer" ........................
" 1 bis unter 3.000 Kilometer" ...........
"10 bis unter 20.000 Kilometer" ...........
"20.000 Kilometer und mehr"...............
FAHRE SEIT LANGEM NICHT MEHR ...
37
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
K2
6219/4
18. a) INTERVIEWER-EINSTUFUNG nach Frage 13 b):
T
Hat der/die Befragte eine Pkw-Führerschein?
JA ........................................................... 1
NEIN ...................................................... 2**
38
JA, FAHRE AUTO .................................. 3*
NEIN, FAHRE NICHT REGELMÄSSIG . 4
b) "Fahren Sie regelmäßig Auto, oder tun Sie das nicht?"
(Mehreres kann angegeben werden!)
* "Und seit wann fahren Sie regelmäßig Auto,
38
39
SEIT ETWA ................ JAHREN
seit wie vielen Jahren in etwa?"
WEISS NICHT, KEINE ANGABE ............ Y
19.
T
"Wie viel tausend Kilometer fahren Sie persönlich pro
Jahr schätzungsweise? Egal, ob mit Ihrem eigenen
oder einem anderen Wagen, so insgesamt gesehen,
wie viel Kilometer sitzen Sie am Steuer? Würden
Sie sagen ..."
"Unter 3.000 Kilometer"........................
" 3 bis unter 5.000 Kilometer" ............
" 5 bis unter 10.000 Kilometer"............
"10 bis unter 15.000 Kilometer"............
"30.000 Kilometer und mehr"...............
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
20.
"Haben Sie ein eigenes Auto bzw. gibt es ein Auto,
das Sie nutzen können, wenn Sie es brauchen?"
JA ........................................................... 1
NEIN ...................................................... 2**
40
41
21.
T
"Und von welcher Marke ist das Auto, das Sie fahren?"
.........................................................................................................................................................................
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
22.
t
"Waren Sie in den vergangenen drei Jahren als Auto-,
Motorrad-, Moped- oder Radfahrer in einen Verkehrsunfall verwickelt?"
42
43
JA .......................................................... 1
NEIN ....................................................... 2**
44
23.
T
"Und wie häufig waren Sie in den vergangenen
drei Jahren in einen Verkehrsunfall verwickelt?"
EINMAL .................................................. 1*
45
ZWEIMAL ............................................... 2***
DREIMAL................................................ 3***
ÖFTER, und zwar: ................. MAL***
WEISS NICHT, KEINE ANGABE ............ Y
*
***
a) "Und mit was für einem Fahrzeug waren Sie in einen A) "Und können Sie mir noch sagen, wie viele
Unfall verwickelt? War das ein Auto, ein Motorrad,
Auto-, Motorrad-, Moped- und Fahrradunfälle
ein Moped oder ein Fahrrad?"
das jeweils waren?" (Anzahl eintragen!)
AUTO......................................................
MOTORRAD ...........................................
MOPED...................................................
FAHRRAD ...............................................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
1
2
3
4
5
46
47
...........AUTOUNFÄLLE
48
............MOTORRADUNFÄLLE
49
............MOPEDUNFÄLLE
50
............FAHRRADUNFÄLLE
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... X
b) "Würden Sie mir auch noch sagen, ob Sie diesen
t Verkehrsunfall damals verursacht haben, waren
Sie daran schuld oder mitschuldig, oder traf Sie
da keinerlei Schuld?"
WAR SCHULD........................................
WAR MITSCHULDIG .............................
KEINERLEI SCHULD ..............................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
6
7
8
9
46
B) "Wenn Sie einmal an die Unfälle denken, in
t die Sie in den letzten drei Jahren verwickelt
waren: Wie viele dieser Verkehrsunfälle haben
Sie selbst verursacht, waren also schuld bzw.
mitschuldig?"
51
.................. UNFÄLLE VERURSACHT
KEINEN DAVON.................. 0
KEINE ANGABE .................. Y
K2
6219/5/A
24.
"Ist es Ihnen schon mal passiert, dass Sie im Auto mitfahren wollten oder mitgefahren sind, und der Fahrer oder
die Fahrerin hatte etwas mehr Alkohol getrunken, oder
ist Ihnen das noch nie passiert?"
* "Wie war das beim letzten Mal, als Sie das beim Mitfahren bemerkt haben, wie sind Sie da damit umgegangen? Sind Sie wieder ausgestiegen, oder sind
Sie gar nicht erst eingestiegen, oder haben Sie den
Fahrer darauf angesprochen, sind aber weiter
mitgefahren, oder haben Sie gar nichts gemacht?"
25.
"Auch wenn man das nicht immer sicher sagen kann,
aber ist es Ihnen schon mal passiert, dass Sie im Auto
mitfahren wollten oder mitgefahren sind, und der Fahrer
oder die Fahrerin hatte Medikamente oder Drogen
genommen, z.B. starke Schlaf- oder Schmerzmittel,
Haschisch, Marihuana, Ecstasy oder Ähnliches, oder
Fahrer darauf angesprochen, sind aber weiter mitgefahren, oder haben Sie gar nichts gemacht?"
SCHON MEHRMALS VORGEKOMMEN 1*
SCHON EINMAL VORGEKOMMEN ...... 2*
NOCH NIE PASSIERT............................. 3
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 4
52
AUSGESTIEGEN....................................
GAR NICHT ERST EINGESTIEGEN ......
FAHRER DARAUF ANGESPROCHEN,
ABER WEITER MITGEFAHREN ......
NICHTS GEMACHT ...............................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
52
JA, SCHON MEHRMALS
VORGEKOMMEN ............................
JA, SCHON EINMAL VORGEKOMMEN
NEIN, NOCH NIE PASSIERT..................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
AUSGESTIEGEN....................................
NICHTS GEMACHT ...............................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
5
6
7
8
9
1*
2*
3
4
53
5
6
53
7
8
9
26. a) INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Kartenspiel !
"Einmal angenommen, im Wartezimmer beim Arzt liegen fünf Broschüren mit diesen Titeln.
Zu welcher dieser Broschüren würden Sie am ehesten greifen, was interessiert Sie am meisten?"
(Genanntes einkreisen! - Nur eine Angabe möglich!)
54
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
NICHTS DAVON ...................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE....................................... 9
b) INTERVIEWER überreicht nochmals rosa Kartenspiel !
"Und welche dieser Broschüren interessiert Sie am wenigsten?"
55
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
NICHTS DAVON ...................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE....................................... 9
27.
"Machen Sie sich über das Thema Alkohol- und Drogenkonsum bei Jugendlichen viele Gedanken, oder weniger
Gedanken, oder eigentlich gar keine Gedanken?"
28.
"Derzeit wird in Deutschland eine Kampagne geplant, die
junge Leute vor den Gefahren von Alkohol und Drogen
am Steuer warnen soll. Könnten Sie sich vorstellen, diese
Kampagne zu unterstützen, etwas für diese Kampagne zu
tun, oder wäre das vermutlich nichts für Sie?"
*
VIELE GEDANKEN .................................
WENIGER GEDANKEN..........................
EIGENTLICH GAR KEINE GEDANKEN .
UNENTSCHIEDEN, KEINE ANGABE ....
1
2
3
4
56
57
KÖNNTE ICH MIR VORSTELLEN .......... 1*
WÄRE NICHTS FÜR MICH .................... 2
UNENTSCHIEDEN, KEINE ANGABE .... 3
INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Liste 2!
"Einmal angenommen, Sie würden sich entscheiden, diese Kampagne zu unterstützen. Was würden
Sie am ehesten tun, um sich daran zu beteiligen: Bitte sagen Sie es mir nach dieser Liste."
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
58
ANDERES, und zwar:............................................................................................................................. 8
IN NICHTS DAVON ................................ 0
WEISS NICHT ........................................ 9
K2
6219/5/B
24.
"Ist es Ihnen schon mal passiert, dass Sie im Auto mitfahren wollten oder mitgefahren sind, und der Fahrer oder
die Fahrerin hatte etwas mehr Alkohol getrunken, oder
Fahrer darauf angesprochen, sind aber weiter
mitgefahren, oder haben Sie gar nichts gemacht?"
25.
"Auch wenn man das nicht immer sicher sagen kann,
aber ist es Ihnen schon mal passiert, dass Sie im Auto
mitfahren wollten oder mitgefahren sind, und der Fahrer
oder die Fahrerin hatte Medikamente oder Drogen
genommen, z.B. starke Schlaf- oder Schmerzmittel,
Haschisch, Marihuana, Ecstasy oder Ähnliches, oder
Fahrer darauf angesprochen, sind aber weiter mitgefahren, oder haben Sie gar nichts gemacht?"
SCHON MEHRMALS VORGEKOMMEN 1*
SCHON EINMAL VORGEKOMMEN ...... 2*
NOCH NIE PASSIERT............................. 3
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 4
52
AUSGESTIEGEN....................................
NICHTS GEMACHT ...............................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
52
JA, SCHON MEHRMALS
VORGEKOMMEN ............................
JA, SCHON EINMAL VORGEKOMMEN
NEIN, NOCH NIE PASSIERT..................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
AUSGESTIEGEN....................................
NICHTS GEMACHT ...............................
KEINE ANGABE .....................................
5
6
7
8
9
1*
2*
3
4
53
5
6
53
7
8
9
26. a) INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Kartenspiel !
"Einmal angenommen, im Wartezimmer beim Arzt liegen fünf Broschüren mit diesen Titeln.
Zu welcher dieser Broschüren würden Sie am ehesten greifen, was interessiert Sie am meisten?"
54
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
NICHTS DAVON ...................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE....................................... 9
b) INTERVIEWER überreicht nochmals rosa Kartenspiel !
"Und welche dieser Broschüren interessiert Sie am wenigsten?"
55
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
NICHTS DAVON ...................................... 0
KEINE ANGABE....................................... 9
27.
"Machen Sie sich über das Thema Alkohol- und Drogenkonsum im Straßenverkehr eigentlich viele Gedanken,
oder weniger Gedanken, oder gar keine Gedanken?"
28.
"Derzeit wird in Deutschland eine Kampagne geplant, die
junge Leute vor den Gefahren von Alkohol und Drogen
am Steuer warnen soll. Könnten Sie sich vorstellen, diese
Kampagne zu unterstützen, etwas für diese Kampagne zu
tun, oder wäre das vermutlich nichts für Sie?"
*
VIELE GEDANKEN .................................
WENIGER GEDANKEN..........................
EIGENTLICH GAR KEINE GEDANKEN .
1
2
3
4
56
57
KÖNNTE ICH MIR VORSTELLEN .......... 1*
WÄRE NICHTS FÜR MICH .................... 2
INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Liste 6!
"Einmal angenommen, Sie würden sich entscheiden, diese Kampagne zu unterstützen. Was würden
Sie am ehesten tun, um sich daran zu beteiligen: Bitte sagen Sie es mir nach dieser Liste."
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 /
58
ANDERES, und zwar:............................................................................................................................. 8
IN NICHTS DAVON ................................ 0
WEISS NICHT ........................................ 9
K2
70046219/6/A'
/ Auszug / 2
29.
30.
T
31.
PARTNER/PARTNERIN .......................... 1
FREUND/FREUNDIN ............................. 2
ELTERN ................................................. 3
GESCHWISTER...................................... 4
ANDERE FAMILIENMITLGIEDER ......... 5
TRAINER IM SPORTVEREIN................. 6
LEHRER UND DOZENTEN .................... 7
ARZT ...................................................... 8
LEUTE IN EINER ONLINE-COMMUNITY 9
ANONYM IM INTERNET RAT SUCHEN 0
59
ANDERES, und zwar:...................................................................................................................................... 8
WÜRDE MIT NIEMANDEM REDEN ...... 0
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
60
"Mit wem würden Sie reden, wenn es um Ihre Erfahrungen, persönlichen Probleme bzw. Fragen zum Thema Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr geht, wer käme da
alles für Sie als Gesprächspartner in Frage?"
"Seit einiger Zeit gibt es eine Kampagne gegen zu schnelles Autofahren,
für die unter anderem mit Plakaten am Autobahnrand, mit Anzeigen
in Zeitungen und Zeitschriften, mit Werbespots im Radio,
SCHON DAVON GEHÖRT ..................... 1
Kino usw. geworben wird. Haben Sie von dieser KamHÖRE DAVON ZUM ERSTEN MAL....... 2
pagne mit dem Titel 'Runter vom Gas' schon mal gehört,
oder hören Sie davon jetzt zum ersten Mal?"
61
INTERVIEWER überreicht Bildkarte und weißes Bildblatt 7 !
"Ich habe hier ein Plakat, wie es am Straßenrand stehen könnte. Bitte sehen Sie sich das Plakat in Ruhe
an. Wie gut gefällt Ihnen dieses Plakat alles in allem? Bitte sagen Sie es mir nach diesem Blatt mit den
schwarzen und weißen Kästchen. +5 bedeutet, das Plakat gefällt Ihnen sehr gut, -5 bedeutet, es gefällt
Ihnen überhaupt nicht oder sehr schlecht. Welches Kästchen nehmen Sie?" (Genanntes einkreisen!)
/ -5 / -4 / -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 /
7
8
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
32.
33.
INTERVIEWER überreicht blaues Kartenspiel und graues Bildblatt 8 !
"Hier auf diesen Karten ist einiges aufgeschrieben, was man über dieses Plakat sagen kann. Bitte
verteilen Sie die Karten auf das Blatt hier, je nachdem, ob das Ihrer Ansicht nach voll und ganz zutrifft,
oder eher zutrifft, oder teilweise zutrifft, oder eher nicht oder gar nicht zutrifft. Karten mit Eigenschaften,
die Sie nicht beurteilen können, legen Sie bitte beiseite." (Jeweils Zutreffendes einkreisen!)
62
III
TRIFFT VOLL UND GANZ ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
08
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
09
TRIFFT TEILWEISE ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
10
TRIFFT EHER NICHT ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
11
TRIFFT GAR NICHT ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
12
"Wissen Sie zufällig, wie die Person heißt, die auf dem Plakat zu sehen ist?"
JA, und zwar: ..................................................................................................................................................
NEIN, WEISS NICHT............................... 0
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
13
K 2/K 3
7004
6219/6/A''
/ Auszug / 2
29.
30.
T
31.
FREUND/FREUNDIN ............................. 2
ELTERN ................................................. 3
GESCHWISTER...................................... 4
ARZT ...................................................... 8
59
ANDERES, und zwar:...................................................................................................................................... 8
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
60
61
/ -5 / -4 / -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 /
7
8
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
32.
33.
62
III
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
08
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
09
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
10
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
11
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
12
JA, und zwar: ..................................................................................................................................................
NEIN, WEISS NICHT............................... 0
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
13
K 2/K 3
70046219/6/B'
/ Auszug / 2
29.
30.
T
31.
FREUND/FREUNDIN ............................. 2
ELTERN ................................................. 3
GESCHWISTER...................................... 4
ARZT ...................................................... 8
59
ANDERES, und zwar:...................................................................................................................................... 8
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
60
61
/ -5 / -4 / -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 /
7
8
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
32.
33.
62
III
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
08
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
09
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
10
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
11
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
12
JA, und zwar: ..................................................................................................................................................
NEIN, WEISS NICHT............................... 0
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
13
K 2/K 3
7004
6219/6/B''
/ Auszug / 2
29.
30.
T
31.
FREUND/FREUNDIN ............................. 2
ELTERN ................................................. 3
GESCHWISTER...................................... 4
ARZT ...................................................... 8
59
ANDERES, und zwar:...................................................................................................................................... 8
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
60
61
/ -5 / -4 / -3 / -2 / -1 / 0 / +1 / +2 / +3 / +4 / +5 /
7
8
KEINE ANGABE ..................................... 9
32.
33.
62
III
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
08
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
09
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
10
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
11
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
12
JA, und zwar: ..................................................................................................................................................
NEIN, WEISS NICHT............................... 0
KEINE ANGABE...................................... 9
13
K 2/K 3
7004 6219/7
/ Auszug / 2
34.
INTERVIEWER überreicht gelbes Kartenspiel und nochmals graues Bildblatt 8 !
"Hier ist einmal einiges aufgeschrieben, was uns andere im Zusammenhang mit Alkohol und Drogen
im Straßenverkehr gesagt haben. Bitte verteilen Sie die Karten auf das Blatt hier, je nachdem, wie
sehr Sie diesen Aussagen zustimmen. Karten, zu denen Sie nichts sagen können, legen Sie bitte
einfach beiseite." (Jeweils Zutreffendes einkreisen!)
TRIFFT VOLL UND GANZ
ZU:
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
35.
T
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
14
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 /
15
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
16
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 /
17
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
18
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 /
19
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
20
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 /
21
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
22
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 /
23
"Zum Schluss noch einmal eine Frage zum Autofahren:
Wer fährt aus Ihrer Sicht besser Auto: Männer oder
Frauen, oder fahren beide gleich gut Auto?"
MÄNNER ...............................................
FRAUEN .................................................
BEIDE GLEICH........................................
1
2
3
4
24
K3
6219/STAT./1
STATISTIK: "Jetzt möchte ich Sie noch um wenige statistische Angaben bitten!"
1.
Geschlecht:
2.
Alter:
MÄNNLICH ............................................ 1
WEIBLICH............................................... 2
09
10
JAHRE
3.
T
08
Eine Frage zum Schulabschluss:
Könnten Sie nach dieser Liste sagen, was auf Sie zutrifft, welche Nummer?
(INTERVIEWER überreicht grüne Liste S!)
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 /
4.
Sind Sie berufstätig?
JA ..........................................................
JA, MITHELFEND IM EIGENEN BETRIEB ...
IN BERUFSAUSBILDUNG .....................
ARBEITSLOS..........................................
HAUSFRAU, HAUSMANN ....................
SCHÜLER ...............................................
STUDENT ...............................................
OHNE BERUF.........................................
T
*
t
11
1*
2*
3*
4
6
7
8
0
12
INTERVIEWER überreicht rosa Liste B!
"Könnten Sie mir anhand dieser Liste sagen, zu welcher Branche Ihr Betrieb, Ihr Unternehmen
gehört?"(Genanntes einkreisen!)
/ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 /
13
14
/ 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 /
WEISS NICHT, KEINE ANGABE ............ 9
5.
T
Könnten Sie mir nach dieser Liste sagen
(INTERVIEWER überreicht weiße Liste E!),
in welche der Netto-Monatseinkommensgruppen Sie fallen?
Gruppe A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L oder M?
6. a)
T
Leben Sie in einem Mehrpersonenhaushalt
oder allein?
A ................. Y
B ................. X
C ................. 0
D ................. 1
E ................. 2
F ................. 3
G ................. 4
15
H .................
I ...................
K .................
L ..................
M .................
5
6
7
8
9
15
16
MEHRPERSONENHAUSHALT .............. A
ALLEIN ................................................... 1**
17
** Gleich übergehen zu Punkt 10 !
b) Wie viele Personen - Kinder und Erwachsene zusammen leben im Haushalt, Sie selbst bitte mitgezählt?
7.
T
Wie viele Personen im Haushalt sind berufstätig oder
haben sonst Einkommen irgendwelcher Art, wie Rente,
Mieteinkommen usw.?
/ 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / PERSONEN
17
MEHR ALS 5 PERSONEN...................... 6
18
.................... PERSONEN
NUR EINE PERSON ............................... 1**
** Gleich übergehen zu Punkt 9 !
8.
T
INTERVIEWER legt blaue Liste F bereit !
Wenn Sie jetzt das Einkommen aller Haushaltsmitglieder
zusammenzählen: Wie groß ist das Netto-Einkommen
des Haushalts insgesamt im Monat? Sie brauchen mir
nur nach dieser Liste hier den Buchstaben zu sagen.
(INTERVIEWER überreicht blaue Liste F ! Genanntes einkreisen!)
A ................. Y
B ................. X
C ................. 0
D ................. 1
E ................. 2
F ................. 3
G ................. 4
19
H .................
I ...................
K .................
L ..................
5
6
7
8
19
K1
6219/STAT./2
9.
T
Leben Sie noch im Haushalt der Eltern oder nicht mehr?
10.
INTERVIEWER, jetzt das Ausfüllblatt vom Ende des Fragebogens abreißen und zusammen
mit dem leeren Umschlag überreichen!
JA, LEBE NOCH BEI DEN ELTERN........ 1
NEIN NICHT MEHR................................ 2
21
"Es gibt noch einige Zusatzfragen, die uns für diese Studie interessieren würden. Ich möchte Ihnen
dazu dieses Blatt zum Selbstausfüllen überreichen. Wenn Sie mit dem Ausfüllen fertig sind, stecken
Sie die Blätter bitte in den Umschlag und verschließen ihn. Der Umschlag wird erst wieder im Institut
für Demoskopie in Allensbach geöffnet."
Nach Abschluss des Interviews:
INTERVIEWER-NOTIZEN:
a)
T
b)
T
c)
T
OHNE BEFRAGEN - NACH BEOBACHTUNG:
Soziale Schicht des/der Befragten:
A ........... 1
D .......... 4
22
Das Interview war in der Länge -
GUT .......................................................................... 1
ETWAS ZU LANG .................................................... 2
VIEL ZU LANG ......................................................... 3
23
Charakter des Wohnortes:
Datum:
.....................................
-
C .......... 3
Großstadtatmosphäre ................................................................................
Klein-, mittelstädtisches Milieu in Ballungsgebiet ...................................
Klein-, mittelstädtisches Milieu in weniger dicht besiedeltem Gebiet....
Ländliche Gegend, in der Nähe einer Mittel- oder Großstadt.................
Ländliches Milieu mit kleineren Städten in der Nähe..............................
Wochentag des Interviews:
Mo. (1)
Do. (4)
So. (7)
B ........... 2
Di. (2)
Fr. (5)
29
Dauer des Interviews:
1
2
3
4
5
24
Uhrzeit bei Beendigung
des Interviews:
Mi. (3)
Sa. (6)
...................... Minuten
30 31
............................. Uhr
25-28
32 33
Wohnor t des Befragten:
Postleitzahl
Ort:
34 35 36 37 38
............................................................................
(Bitte in Druckschrift)
Inter viewer
Interviewer-Nr.
Unterschrift:
..............................................................................
39 40 41 42 43 44
K1
A''
Hauptbefragung 0000/W
Selbstausfüllblatt
September
Umfrage
6219 0000
Juni 2011
C05 X
C068.6
FB-NR
Wenn
keine Antworten
vorgegeben
sind, auf
den punktierten
Bitte kreuzeneinkreisen.
Sie die jeweils
zutreffenden
Kästchen
an. Die kleinen
Zahlen
neben den Linien Antworten
im Wortlaut
eintragen. Alle
Ergebnisse
Umfrage
dienen
dazu, die Meinung der BeKästchen werden
für die Auswertung
gebraucht,
siedieser
sind für
Sie ohne
Bedeutung!
völkerung zu erforschen und besser bekanntzumachen.
1.
2.
Viele Leute mögen ja Alkohol, andere machen
sich nicht viel daraus. Wie ist das bei Ihnen:
Wie oft trinken Sie Alkohol?
Täglich, fast täglich ..........................
Zwei- bis dreimal pro Woche ..........
Einmal pro Woche............................
Etwa zwei- bis dreimal im Monat...
Seltener ............................................
Nie ....................................................






1
2
3
4
5
6
08
Weiter mit
Frage 4!
Wenn Sie am Wochenende ausgehen: Wie viel Alkohol trinken Sie dann in der Regel an einem Abend?
Könnten Sie das bitte grob schätzen und unten eintragen, wie viele Gläser Bier, Wein, Schnaps oder
Cocktails bzw. Longdrinks Sie an so einem Abend ungefähr trinken.
0,2 l
Wein
Anzahl _______
09
10
Anzahl _______
11
12
Anzahl _______
13
14
Anzahl _______
15
16
0,33 l
Bier
Schnaps
0,02 l
0,3 l
Cocktails/
Longdrinks
K4
Selbstausfüllblatt
I N S T I T U T F Ü R D E M O S K O P I E A L L E N S6219/Seite
B A C2 H
A''
C05 X
Hauptbefragung 0000/W
September 0000
C068.6
im Wortlaut eintragen. Alle Ergebnisse dieser Umfrage dienen dazu, die Meinung der BeIst es schon mal
vorgekommen,
dass und
Sie Auto
gefahren
Schon mal vorgekommen...............  1
3.
völkerung
zu erforschen
besser
bekanntzumachen.
sind, obwohl Sie vielleicht zu viel getrunken hatten, oder
Noch nie vorgekommen..................  2
ist das noch nie vorgekommen?
Habe keinen Führerschein ..............  3
4.
17
Eine Frage zu Schlaf-, Beruhigungsmitteln und Drogen: Nehmen Sie eines dieser Mittel ein?
Ich habe dieses Mittel...
Noch nie
genommen
Nur einmal
probiert
Schon
mehrmals
genommen
Starke Schlafmittel ....................................................................

1

2

3
Starke Beruhigungsmittel ..........................................................

4

5

6
Haschisch, Marihuana .................................................................

7

8

9
LSD ...............................................................................................

1

2

3
Kokain...........................................................................................

4

5

6
Heroin...........................................................................................

7

8

9
Crack .............................................................................................

1

2

3
Ecstasy (XTC)...............................................................................

4

5

6
Speed ...........................................................................................

7

8

9

1

2

3
18
19
20
Anderes, und zwar:
......................................................................................................
5.
Ist es schon mal vorgekommen, dass Sie Auto gefahren
sind, obwohl Sie zuvor eines der oben genannten Mittel
genommen haben?
Schon mal vorgekommen...............  1
Noch nie vorgekommen..................  2
Habe keinen Führerschein ..............  3
21
22
K4
2
Darf man unter
keinen Umständen
tun
1
Zu Frage 4
3
4
5
6
BILDBLATT
1
7
8
10
Ist in jedem
Fall in Ordnung
9
6219
Zu Frage 8
6219
L I S T E
2
(1)
Politik und Weltgeschehen
(2)
Partnerschaft und Liebe
(3)
Musik
(4)
Spaß und Comedy
(5)
Autos und Motorsport
(6)
Sport (außer Motorsport)
(7)
Umwelt und Natur
(8)
Kino
(9)
Kultur, Theater, Festivals
(10)
Computer
(11)
Technik
(12)
Reise
(13)
Wirtschaft
(14)
Arbeit und Beruf
(15)
Neuigkeiten über Stars und Prominente
(16)
Lokale Ereignisse, Geschehen am Ort
(17)
Fitness und Ernährung
(18)
Mode und Styling
(19)
Gesundheitsthemen
(20)
Wetter
(21)
Praktische Ratschläge für den Alltag,
z.B. Verbrauchertipps
Zu Frage 9
6219
L I S T E
3
(1)
E-Mails schreiben und lesen
(2)
Einfach nur im Internet surfen
(3)
Chatten oder Instant Messaging (z.B. ICQ, MSN
Messenger usw.)
(4)
Online-Games, Computerspiele über das Internet
(5)
Online-Communities für private Zwecke nutzen
(z.B. Facebook, StudiVZ, SchülerVZ)
(6)
Online-Communites für berufliche Zwecke nutzen
(z.B. Xing, LinkedIn)
(7)
Filme/Videos ansehen oder downloaden (z.B.
über Youtube, MyVideo)
(8)
Filme/Videos einstellen (z.B. über Youtube,
MyVideo)
(9)
Musik, Sounddateien anhören oder downloaden
(z.B. über Musicload, iTunes)
(10)
Musik, Sounddateien einstellen (z.B. über
Musicload, iTunes)
(11)
Fotos downloaden oder einstellen (z.B. über Flickr)
(12)
Lesezeichensammlungen verwalten oder austauschen
(13)
In Blogs und Wikis Beiträge lesen oder verfassen
(14)
Preise vergleichen, Testberichte, Bewertungen lesen
(15)
Online-Shopping
(16)
Für Schule, Ausbildung, Beruf nach Informationen
suchen
(17)
Fernsehen über das Internet
(18)
Radiohören über das Internet
Zu Frage 11
6219
L I S T E
4
(1)
Die Profile anderer Mitglieder ansehen
(2)
Nach Informationen über interessante Themen
und Ereignisse suchen
(3)
Nach Bekannten und neuen Kontakten suchen
(4)
Das eigene Profil pflegen, um andere über mich
und über das, was ich mache, auf dem Laufenden
zu halten
(5)
Beiträge und Kommentare auf die Pinnwand
oder in das Gästebuch von anderen Mitgliedern
schreiben
(6)
Anderen Mitgliedern der Community eine
private Nachricht schicken oder mit Mitgliedern
chatten
(7)
Fotos, Videos, Musik hochladen oder
weiterleiten
(8)
Mich in Gruppen mit anderen
austauschen
(9)
Interessanten Links nachgehen, die andere
Community-Mitglieder empfehlen
Zu Frage 12
6219
L I S T E
5
(1)
Prominente Sportler
(2)
Prominente Musiker
(3)
Bekannte Schauspieler
(4)
Junge Leute
(5)
Leute, die mit dem Thema selbst
schon Erfahrungen gemacht haben
(6)
Politiker
(7)
Experten, z.B. Wissenschaftler
(8)
Vertreter von Nichtregierungsorganisationen
(NGOs)
(9)
Vertreter von Beratungseinrichtungen
(10)
Fernsehmoderatoren, Redakteure
von Wissenschaftssendungen
Zu Frage 28 *
6219
L I S T E
6
(1)
Freunde und Bekannte auf die
Kampagne aufmerksam machen
(2)
Flyer an Autos anbringen
(3)
Bei einem Informationsstand
mithelfen
(4)
Links weiterleiten
(5)
Gesprächsrunde in einer Jugendeinrichtung organisieren
Anderes bitte angeben!
Zu Frage 31
6219
BILDBLATT 7
+
+ 55
+
+ 44
+
+ 33
+
+ 22
+
+ 11
0
0
-- 11
-- 22
-- 33
-- 44
-- 55
Zu Fragen 32 und 34
6219
BILDBLATT
TRIFFT EHER ZU:
TRIFFT ÜBERHAUPT NICHT ZU:
8
Zur Statistik
6219
Punkt 3
L I S T E
S
Welchen Schulabschluss haben Sie?
(Schüler geben bitte den angestrebten Abschluss an!)
(1)
Ich bin von der Schule abgegangen ohne
Hauptschulabschluss/Volksschulabschluss
(2)
Ich habe einen Sonder- bzw. Förderschulabschluss
(3)
Ich habe den Hauptschulabschluss/Volksschulabschluss
(4)
Ich bin von der Realschule, polytechnischen
Oberschule oder einer vergleichbaren Schule
abgegangen ohne Realschulabschluss, ohne
Mittlere Reife
(5)
Ich habe den Realschulabschluss (Mittlere Reife,
Abschluss der 10-klassigen polytechnischen
Oberschule)
(6)
Ich habe die Fachhochschulreife
(7)
Ich habe die allgemeine oder fachgebundene
Hochschulreife (Abitur, Fachabitur, Abschluss
der 12-klassigen EOS)
(8)
Ich habe ein Studium an einer Universität, einer
Fachhochschule oder Berufsakademie abgeschlossen
Zu Statistik
Punkt 4 *
6219
L I S T E
B
(1)
Land-, Forstwissenschaft, Fischerei
(2)
Energie-, Wasserversorgung, Bergbau
(3)
Chemische Industrie, Kunststoffverarbeitung
(4)
Stahl-, Maschinen-, Fahrzeugbau
(5)
Elektrotechnik
(6)
Holz-, Papier-, Druckgewerbe
(7)
Bekleidungsgewerbe (Textil, Leder)
(8)
Nahrungs- und Genussmittelindustrie
(9)
Baugewerbe
(10)
Handel (Groß- und Einzelhandel)
(11)
Verkehrswesen
(12)
Telekommunikation
(13)
Kreditinstitute, Versicherungswesen
(14)
Andere Dienstleistungen
(15)
Öffentliche und gemeinnützige
Organisationen ohne Erwerbszweck
(z.B. Behörden, Kirchen, Verbände)
(16)
Sonstiges
Zur Statistik
6219
Punkt 5
L I S T E
E
In welche der folgenden Netto-Monatseinkommensgruppen fallen Sie?
(Bitte den entsprechenden Buchstaben angeben!)
(A)
Unter 500 Euro
(B)
500 - 749 Euro
(C)
750 - 999 Euro
(D)
1.000 - 1.249 Euro
(E)
1.250 - 1.499 Euro
(F)
1.500 - 1.749 Euro
(G)
1.750 - 1.999 Euro
(H)
2.000 - 2.499 Euro
(I)
2.500 - 2.999 Euro
(K)
3.000 - 3.499 Euro
(L)
3.500 Euro und mehr
(M)
Habe kein Einkommen
Zur Statistik
6219
Punkt 8
L I S T E
F
Wie groß ist das Netto-Einkommen des Haushalts
insgesamt im Monat?
(A)
Unter 500 Euro
(B)
500 - 749 Euro
(C)
750 - 999 Euro
(D)
1.000 - 1.249 Euro
(E)
1.250 - 1.499 Euro
(F)
1.500 - 1.749 Euro
(G)
1.750 - 1.999 Euro
(H)
2.000 - 2.499 Euro
(I)
2.500 - 2.999 Euro
(K)
3.000 - 3.499 Euro
(L)
3.500 Euro und mehr
Die folgenden Bogen werden in einzelne Karten geschnitten, auf denen jeweils nur eine der Angaben
zu lesen ist. Die Interviewer haben den Befragten
die Karten willkürlich geordnet in die Hand zu geben.
2
1
Woran erkenne ich als
Mitfahrer, ob der Fahrer
Alkohol getrunken oder
Drogen genommen hat?
rosa Kartenspiel
Wie viel Alkohol und Drogen sind erlaubt, wenn ich
noch Auto fahren möchte?
1
2
4
3
Wie gefährlich sind Alkohol
und Drogen beim Autofahren?
Wie beeinflussen Alkohol
und Drogen die Konzentration am Steuer?
3
5
Wie vermeide ich es, mich
unter Alkohol- oder
Drogeneinfluss ans Steuer
zu setzen?
5
4
2
1
Spricht mich an
blaues Kartenspiel
Glaubwürdig
1
2
4
3
Überraschend
Belehrend, besserwisserisch
3
4
.6
5
Macht nachdenklich
Aufrüttelnd
5
6.
8
7
Lächerlich, peinlich
Informativ
7
8
2
1
Zu manchen Partys gehört
Alkohol einfach dazu, auch
wenn man noch fahren
muss
gelbes Kartenspiel
Alkohol trinken oder Drogen
nehmen und dann noch
Auto fahren – das geht gar
nicht!
1
2
4
3
Nach ein oder zwei Bier
oder einem Glas Wein kann
man schon noch Auto fahren
Nach einem Joint kann man
schon noch Auto fahren
3
4
6.
5
Die Unfallgefahr steigt deutlich an, wenn man als Fahrer Alkohol getrunken oder
Drogen genommen hat
Ich würde nie auf Alkohol
oder Drogen verzichten, nur
weil ich noch Auto fahren
muss
5
6.
8
7
Die meisten meiner Freunde
meinen, dass man Alkohol
und Drogen im Straßenverkehr meiden sollte
Wenn man bestimmte
Drogen genommen hat,
fühlt man sich beim Autofahren sogar besonders fit
7
8
10
9.
Viele Freunde von mir würden auch dann noch Auto
fahren, wenn sie einiges
getrunken oder Drogen
genommen haben
gelbes Kartenspiel
Ich traue mir zu, sicher mit
dem Auto zu fahren, auch
wenn ich einiges getrunken
habe
9.
10
12
11
Schmerzmittel beeinträchtigen mich nicht beim Autofahren
Mir würde es leicht fallen,
auf Alkohol und Drogen zu
verzichten, wenn ich noch
fahren muss
11
12
14
13
Wenn ich zukünftig Auto
fahre, halte ich mich grundsätzlich von Drogen und
Alkohol fern
Wenn eine Party bevorsteht,
werde ich rechtzeitig planen, wie ich sicher nach
Hause komme
13
14
16
15
Ich nehme lieber ein Taxi
oder gehe zu Fuß, als mit
jemandem mitzufahren, der
etwas getrunken oder
genommen hat
Wenn ich bei jemandem
im Auto mitfahre, fühle ich
mich für die Sicherheit des
Fahrers mitverantwortlich
15
16
18
17
Wenn ich auf einer Party zu
viel getrunken oder Drogen
genommen habe, werde ich
mein Auto lieber stehen lassen und zu Fuß gehen oder
z.B. bei jemandem mitfahren
17
19
Es macht Spaß, Auto zu
fahren, wenn man ein
bisschen was getrunken
hat
19
gelbes Kartenspiel
Ich kenne Leute, die öfter
mal betrunken Auto fahren
18

DRUID outcomes and risk communication to young drivers

Transcription

Similar documents

Gesprächskultur 2.0

Programmheft 02/2008

Le programme de partenariat Swiss Sailing WinWin.

Stiftungsverzeichnis, Stand 02.2016