An Examination of the Reconceptualized

Home , Deterrence (penology)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECONCEPTUALIZED

DETERRENCE THEORY: EXPERIENCES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

COLLEGIATE STUDENTS, DRUNK DRIVING AND AN

APPLICATION OF PUNISHMENT AVOIDANCE

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Division of Criminal Justice

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Criminal Justice

Arianna Cheyenne Perez

SPRING 2018

Arianna Cheyenne Perez

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECONCEPTUALIZED

DETERRENCE THEORY: EXPERIENCES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

COLLEGIATE STUDENTS, DRUNK DRIVING AND AN

APPLICATION OF PUNISHMENT AVOIDANCE

A Thesis

Arianna Cheyenne Perez

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Jennie Singer, Ph.D.

______, Second Reader Kim Schnurbush, Ph.D.

______Date

iii

Student: Arianna Cheyenne Perez

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Sue C. Escobar, J.D., Ph.D. Date

Division of Criminal Justice

Abstract

AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECONCEPTUALIZED

DETERRENCE THEORY: EXPERIENCES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

COLLEGIATE STUDENTS, DRUNK DRIVING AND AN

APPLICATION OF PUNISHMENT AVOIDANCE

Arianna Cheyenne Perez

Extant literature distinguishes the processes of deterrence by referencing two distinct populations, either the general public or the punished offender. Stafford and

Warr (1993), however, assert that these distinctions limit the various experiences individuals may have within these populations. To claim that one’s direct and indirect experiences with punishment is the only relevant consideration in predicting their future behavior is to ignore the potential effects of direct and indirect experiences with punishment avoidance. As such, punishment avoidance should be considered analytically distinct from the other two processes of deterrence, as individuals may be fused between both types of experiences. With this implementation, general and specific deterrence within the traditional deterrence theory become conceptually problematic and restrictive in both practice and when measuring deterrence.

Punishment avoidance expands the reconceptualized deterrence theory into four relevant experiences that any individual may have. A such, this study utilized the

criminal offense of driving under the influence of alcohol to measure the significance of the punishment avoidance inclusion into the reconceptualized deterrence theory.

______, Committee Chair Jennie Singer, Ph.D.

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee members. Dr.

Singer, thank you for your expertise throughout this process and for your guidance in researching and writing my thesis. I have been able to complete this rigorous program in two years with not only your patience, but your words of encouragement and continuous motivation. Dr. Kim, it has been with our back and forth middle of the night emails and weekly office hour appointments that have kept me sane and steered me in the onward and upward direction. The harsh demands of this program felt crippling at times, and this easily became the most grueling journey throughout my academic studies. I was full of tears and on the verge of quitting a handful of times, but the thought of submitting to defeat motivated me even more; your reassurance helped me persevere. Dr. Singer and

Dr. Kim, your time spent with me away from the classroom has allowed me to create a product that reflects my aptitude and diligence – a product that I am so proud of. Both of you have helped me envision a fulfilling future for myself that I will confidently pursue and attain post-graduation.

Alongside my committee, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Getty for his remarkable desire to help students excel. Thank you for your insightful comments, whether I wanted to hear them or not, and your arduous coursework each semester. Both allowed me to capitalize on every subject and opportunity that was important to me.

While I am not sure whether I lost more hair or sleep because of your assignments, I am totally sure that your encouragement for myself and for my cohort are what inspired us to continue putting words on paper. vii

I must thank my incredible cohort – the individuals whom I will forever call my brother and sisters. Each of you learned my weaknesses, then challenged me for two years to build them into strengths – and for that, I am grateful. Thank you for the distressed vent sessions, the stimulating discussions and the passionate debates. Thank you for the countless hours spent inside of the classroom together and for understanding me in a space that only all of us can appreciate. With my deepest gratitude, thank you for being my group of angels that harrowing night on October 1, 2017. Thank you for believing in me. The Las Vegas Route 91 Harvest Festival is a part of me that I will always carry, and with that, I will forever carry all of you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for welcoming me home with kind hearts, warm hugs, thoughtful words and a new pair of Rainbow’s – for that is what has alleviated some of the pain, but what has truly helped me regain my strength, motivation and passion to finish this already challenging process.

I am grateful for my lone cohort brother, Tim Kauer. I have relied on you for words of reassurance when I discounted myself as a student. You have been a vital source of empowerment, and I sincerely thank you for that. You are the strong person that another strong person needs when they are doubtful. Conversations with you are always insightful, therapeutic and liberating. You will forever be my right-hand man.

I owe my deepest appreciation to a dear friend that I gained because of this program, Sonia Boyal. You have been my ultimate confidant, and the only person who has had a similar graduate experience from day one. Although our cohort has been our greatest support system, you have been my greatest alliance. We spent hundreds of hours viii

with each other at Starbucks and the library working endlessly on our theses and coursework. Our work ethic, ambition and aspirations are alike, and I am so thankful for our bond. Dr. Getty dubbed you and I The Force for a reason. We synchronized our graduate school studies at a pace that was both physically and emotionally demanding and exhaustive, but tremendously rewarding. This was an unparalleled experience – thank you for sharing it with me. I am so incredibly proud of you, and of us.

I would like to thank the faculty members that allowed me to use their class time to successfully collect primary data from their students. Also, thank you to the students that participated in this research, as that allowed my ambitious thesis to come to fruition.

An enormous thank you to Ellice Ramm, my statistician, for her immense knowledge and valuable involvement in analyzing my data and transcribing my results.

I must express my very profound gratitude to my friends and family for providing me with the unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study – especially through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment means much more to me than another degree because of all that I have conquered outside of the classroom. Each of you were tremendously vital in that journey, and I am eternally grateful for each of your roles in my life. Thank you.

My ultimate appreciation is for you, Gramps. You raised me by the same words that you continue to remind me of, that I could have anything that I want in this world and that I am more than capable of achieving whatever that may be. Here I am because of you. I love you more, always – this is for you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments ...... vii

List of Tables ...... xiv

List of Figures ...... xv

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM….………………. 1

Statement of the Research Problem ...... 7

Study Purpose ...... 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 14

Theoretical Framework ...... 15

Historical foundation of classical criminology ...... 16

Historical foundation of deterrence theory ...... 18

Contemporary foundation of deterrence theory ...... 20

General deterrence ...... 20

Specific deterrence ...... 21

Punishment avoidance ...... 22

Drinking and Driving ...... 22

Definition of driving under the influence (DUI/DWI) ...... 23

Definition of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ...... 25

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) ...... 27

Demographics ...... 29 x

Age: Underage-drinkers versus Legal-aged drinkers ...... 29

Underage drinking ...... 29

Minimum Level Drinking Age 21 (MLDA-21) ...... 30

Effectiveness of MLDA-21 ...... 32

Status: Collegiate Student versus Non-Collegiate Status ...... 32

College students and the MLDA-21 ...... 32

Gender: Male versus female ...... 36

College Majors: Criminal Justice versus Non-Criminal Justice ...... 39

The Reconceptualized Deterrence Theory ...... 42

Punishment – DUI/DWI arrest/pulled over roadside checkpoint ...... 42

Punishment avoidance ...... 45

Perceived certainty – self and other, and perceived severity – self .... 45

Other measures of personal experience: (1) one’s moral evaluation

of drinking and driving, and (2) threat of informal sanctions ...... 47

Indirect experience with punishment and punishment avoidance ...... 48

Other measures of indirect experience: (1) social networks

approval/disapproval of drinking and driving………………………. 48

Projections of drinking and driving ...... 49

Hypotheses ...... 49

Research Questions ...... 50

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 51

Research Design ...... 51 xi

Instrument ...... 52

Measurements of Variables ...... 53

Independent Variables ...... 54

Punishment – drunk driving arrest ...... 54

Punishment – pulled over roadside checkpoint ...... 54

Punishment avoidance ...... 54

Perceived certainty – self ...... 55

Perceived certainty – other ...... 55

Perceived severity – self ...... 55

Other measures of personal experience ...... 56

Indirect experience with punishment ...... 57

Indirect experience with punishment avoidance ...... 57

Other measures of indirect experience ...... 58

Dependent Variable ...... 59

Projections of drinking and driving ...... 59

Sampling Procedures and Data Collection ...... 59

Reasons for selecting criminal justice majors ...... 60

Reasons for not targeting other populations ...... 61

Sample limitations ...... 61

Protection of Human Subjects ...... 62

Data Analysis Plan ...... 63

4. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS ...... 65 xii

Descriptive Statistics ...... 65

Inferential Statistics ...... 68

Results ...... 69

Hypotheses ...... 69

Research Questions ...... 73

5. DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 84

Discussion ...... 84

Limitations ...... 90

Recommendations ...... 93

Appendix A. Attachment A – Letter to Professors ...... 96

Appendix B. Attachment B – Implied Consent Flyer ...... 97

Appendix C. Attachment C – Implied Consent Form for IRB ...... 99

Appendix D. Attachment D – Online Qualtrics Questionnaire ...... 100

References ...... 106

xiii

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

I. Demographics by participant major… ...... ………………………………. 65

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page

1. An application of punishment avoidance … ...... ………. 8

2. Deterrence theory … ...... ……………………………. 11

3. The reconceptualized deterrence theory … ...... ……………………………. 12

4. Demographics by gender … ...... ……………………………. 66

5. Demographics by age … ...... ……………………………. 67

6. Demographics by academic year … ...... ………. 68

7. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest … ...... ………. 73

8. Projected likelihood for drinking and driving …………… ……………...…. 75

9. Moral acceptability for males … ...... ………. 78

10. Moral acceptability for females … ...... ………. 78

11. Moral acceptability for females by major … ...... ………. 79

12. Projection of drunk driving for males ...... …………………… 80

13. Projection of drunk driving for females ...... …………………… 80

14. Projection of drunk driving for females by major ...... …………………… 81

15. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for males … ...... ………. 82

16. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for females … ...... ………. 83

17. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for females by major … ...... ………. 83

xv 1

Chapter 1

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

Impaired driving impacts numerous lives the moment someone decides to operate a motor vehicle while inebriated. Although alcohol impaired driving has long been a severe social problem, alcohol use during young adulthood and collegiate years has been a more prominent public health problem in the United States (Turrisi, Mallett, Mastroleo,

& Larimer, 2006; Ward, Galante, Trivedi, & Kahrs, 2015). The societal impact of drinking and driving is readily observed in traffic fatality statistics, which demonstrate that young adults who have collegiate status represent higher numbers of these fatalities

(Evans, Neville, & Graham, 1991). Literature suggests that nearly 1,700 collegiate students between the ages of 18-24 die annually from alcohol related injuries (Dornier,

Fauquier, Field, & Budden, 2010). Of those fatalities, nearly 80% are associated with driving after drinking.

National surveys and statistics reveal that collegiate students in the United States have high rates of alcohol use as well as high rates of dangerous drinking practices, such as binge drinking (Windle, 2003). With these drinking practices comes consequences; nearly 25% of collegiate students reporting missed classes, incomplete assignments and poor grades (Wrye & Pruitt, 2017). Furthermore, 33% of students lost anywhere between three to five hours of productive time due to recovering from drinking (Wrye & Pruitt,

2017). These drinking patterns throughout the undergraduate collegiate experience also encourage health-compromising behaviors. The co-occurrence of drinking and driving may lead to individual consequences, such as being cited for driving under the influence

(DUI), or causing great bodily injury or death for others.

In 2009, a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) indicated that nearly 30 people were killed as a result of alcohol-related collisions per day. This is the equivalent to one alcohol-related vehicle fatality every 48 minutes (Ying, Wu, & Chang, 2013). The NHTSA also implied that drunk driving is an indicator of misuse and abuse of alcohol. Alcohol abuse simultaneously costs nearly

11,000 victims their lives annually while also costing the nation nearly $25 billion each year (Evans et al., 1991; NHTSA, 2016b; Ying et al., 2013). Of those victims, public health professionals consider alcohol impaired driving to be the leading killer of

Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. This age group is inclusive of both underage drinkers and collegiate drinkers (Evans et al., 1991).

The United States’ fundamental approach to preventing alcohol-impaired driving has been based on deterrence through both law enforcement and the criminal justice system (Lapham & Todd, 2012). Although there are numerous statistics for drunk driving and the variables that influence this common violation, the latest is a growing body of literature that explores drugged driving matters. From a public health perspective, little is known about the contribution of drugs other than alcohol to traffic crashes. Therefore, this study will exclusively focus on impaired driving due to alcohol consumption (Compton & Berning, 2015). Many bodies of literature exist on the relationship between alcohol use and traffic incidents. The considerable amount of research on this relationship provides an ideal foundation to be able to test the reconceptualized deterrence theory.

Alcohol has been a feature of American culture for decades. While general rules about alcohol consumption tend to be powerful cultural forces, having effective control of drunk driving is a paramount priority among interest groups, public health officials, policy makers and law enforcement agencies throughout the country (Rookey, 2012).

Efforts to control individuals that drive under the influence rely on the deterrence model, which is derived from the deterrence theory. The goal is to detect and arrest drunk drivers with proactive policing practices, thus, lowering DUI rates with increased formal sanctions and certainty of arrest. However, law enforcement agencies practices differ and are only likely to enforce DUI laws that reflect community and cultural forces (Rookey,

2012). For example, university campuses exude a college drinking culture, which may contribute to the climate that defines normative drinking behaviors and more tolerant policing practices. Empirical literature continues to suggest that with conventional deterrence approaches that collegiate individuals comprise a disproportionate amount of drunk drivers.

Before examining alcohol-impaired driving, one must understand how deterrence theory was conceptualized and how it has been so heavily embraced by laws and punishments that exist in the United States. Classical criminology stems from the 1700’s and has provided a platform for the traditional deterrence theory to develop. This concept is an essential pillar in current crime theories and is also what molds the criminal justice system. This concept thrives throughout contemporary crime control policies within the United States.

The development of deterrence theory and its popularity between economists and criminologists in the 1970’s introduced new perspectives to crime control and policymakers (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox, 2013). The criminal justice system in the

United States eventually abandoned rehabilitation as its mode of crime control. In the following decades, the criminal justice system sought to control crime through rejecting criminality, increasing punishment and encouraging deterrence. Literature suggests that deterrence is either the omission or curtailment of misconduct by fearing legal punishment; however, it is argued that this definition and application of deterrence has serious shortcomings (Cullen et al., 2013). As such, literature further indicates that the limitations within this theory overlooks individuals within the two deterrent populations: general population and specific offenders (Cullen et al., 2013).

The criminal justice system has practiced deterrence through exploiting the specific offender population as a way to deter all individuals in both populations. The act of punishment is the exploitation, because the punishment is intended to deter the general population from committing that same crime while also attempting to deter specific offenders from committing crimes again in the future. However, the theory lacks the ability to recognize individuals that commit crime and do not receive punishment, as well as individuals that have knowledge of this type of punishment avoidance. The reconceptualized deterrence theory modifies this shortcoming, and as a result, becomes a more inclusive theory to apply in practice.

This limitation sparked the idea for an expansion of deterrence theory. Theorists

Stafford and Warr introduced a third concept that challenges previous general and

5 specific deterrence doctrines. The reconceptualized deterrence theory intensifies both processes of deterrence (general and specific) through the combinations of direct and indirect punishment and punishment avoidance (Stafford & Warr, 1993). Rather than being an individual in the general population who is presumably deterred by the punishment that the criminal offenders in the second population receive, the reconceptualized theory notes that all individuals may commit a crime and go without punishment; hence, punishment avoidance. The reconceptualized deterrence theory suggests that deterrence is not dichotomous, but rather multiple concepts that individuals can associate with one or more of them based on personal and vicarious experiences. The expansion of this theory is advantageous, because it discusses punishment avoidance as analytically distinct from the experience of suffering a punishment; thus, being a distinctly different concept from both general and specific deterrence.

The evolution of this theory merges multiple concepts together to comprehensively suit a varied population. In deterrence theory, between the general population and specific offenders, a large gap was created on the deterrence spectrum for individuals who: 1) have committed crimes for which they have not been punished and 2) are aware of others who have committed crimes for which they have not been punished; hence, personal and vicarious experience with punishment avoidance. Stafford and Warr

(1993) argue that without suffering legal punishment, an individual has acquired experience with avoiding punishment; therefore, this experience is likely to affect the chances of committing crimes again, and yet, is not represented in either general or specific deterrence. The inclusion of punishment avoidance to deterrence theory is vital,

6 because many individuals are fused between both personal and vicarious experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance (Cullen et al., 2013).

Recent literature addresses the limitations of deterrence theory as failing to consider a necessary component. This is the punishment avoidance that a person may experiences after engaging in criminal behavior. To explain this deficiency within drunk driving literature, some studies suggest that impaired driving “does not always lead to arrests, arrests may not be followed by convictions, and convictions may not result in punishment” (Lapham & Todd, 2012). This drawback within deterrence theory does not explicitly consider the possibility that not being arrested for impaired driving may embolden impaired driving behavior more than punishment reduces it. Because of this,

Stafford and Warr (1993) stress the powerful effects of developing reconceptualized deterrence literature. These theorists are advocates for the inclusion of the third concept and encourage the expansion of the two preceding concepts, general and specific deterrence. Stafford and Warr (1993) argue that general deterrence should be reconceptualized as the deterrent effect of vicarious experiences with both punishment and punishment avoidance, while specific deterrence should be redefined as the direct and vicarious experiences with both punishment and punishment avoidance.

This study utilized a survey that was inclusive of each concept in the reconceptualized deterrence theory. A flyer was given to all students, both male and female, in each classroom that was visited. Each flyer gave instructions on how to take the online survey if students volunteered to participate. The survey was administered through Qualtrics, which is an online survey system. Participants within this study were

7 either an undergraduate or graduate collegiate student. Participants included were both declared and undeclared criminal justice majors, as well as other majors (to be looked at in comparison) at California State University, Sacramento. This study aimed to compare, contrast and assess collegiate students on the reconceptualized deterrence spectrum. This was based on participants’ individual responses about their direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance when asked about the offense of driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.

Statement of the Research Problem

To fill the void within general and specific deterrence, Stafford and Warr introduced a reconceptualized version of deterrence theory. The addition of punishment avoidance has caused many theorists to reconsider the sharp distinction between general and specific deterrence (Cullen et al., 2013). General deterrence is the idea that the general population is dissuaded from committing a crime when one sees that punishment follows the commission of the crime, while specific deterrence is the idea that punishment administered to criminals will discourage those specific offenders from committing future crimes (Braga & Weisburd, 2012).

Previous deterrence theorists and studies have focused specifically on these two concepts. However, Stafford and Warr (1993) note that having such limited concepts completely omits certain direct and indirect experiences that individuals may also have.

Experiences such as the commission of a crime for which they have not been punished for, as well as vicarious experiences, such as being an individual that is aware of others who have committed crimes for which they have not been punished for are defined as

8 punishment avoidance (Cullen et al., 2013). General and specific deterrence concepts have severe shortcomings in extant deterrence literature, because each are lacking the experiences mentioned above. The expansion of the theory is considered to be an effective contribution to future deterrence studies.

The reconceptualized deterrence theory recognizes that many individuals are likely to have a mixture of direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. Therefore, the concept of punishment avoidance expands our understanding of the meaning of general and specific deterrence.

1. Direct 2. Direct 3. Indirect 4. Indirect Punishment Punishment Punishment Punishment (Specific) Avoidance (General) Avoidance

Figure 1. An application of punishment avoidance. The potential experiences an individual may have according to Stafford and Warr (1993) in the reconceptualized deterrence theory.

As shown in Figure 1, there are four distinct experiences that an individual may have. One scenario will be used in four separate ways to represent each experience that an individual may have. The first scenario represents direct punishment (specific deterrence), which is a part of deterrence theory. A person walked into a convenience store, put a piece of candy in their pocket, then attempted to walk out. The clerk of this convenience store caught the individual stealing this piece of candy, and as a result, called the police. The police arrived and arrested this person for theft. This would be an accurate representation of specific deterrence, where an individual committed a crime,

9 was caught and punished for that crime.

The second scenario represents direct punishment avoidance. This concept is not a part of deterrence theory, but is a concept that Stafford and Warr (1993) argued should be included in the reconceptualized deterrence theory. Again, a person walked into a convenience store, put a piece of candy in their pocket, then attempted to walk out.

However, in this scenario, the clerk of the convenience store did not catch the individual stealing this piece of candy. As a result, the police were not called, this person was not arrested, and punishment was not administered. This is an example of direct punishment avoidance, which again, is not included in deterrence theory. Stafford and Warr (1993) suggest for this concept to be included, because this is an experience with crime that an individual may have. However, this person experienced punishment avoidance rather than punishment, which is equally vital (Cullen et al., 2013).

The third scenario represents indirect punishment (general deterrence), which is recognized in deterrence theory. A person walked into a convenience store and was shopping in the candy aisle. This person was a bystander whom watched another individual put a piece of candy in their pocket and attempt to walkout. In this scenario, the clerk of this convenience store caught the individual stealing this piece of candy, and as a result, called the police. The police arrived and arrested this person for theft. This would be an accurate representation of indirect punishment, which is recognized as general deterrence. According to deterrence theory, this is the idea that the bystander will be deterred from having any desires to commit theft, because of the punishment they saw being administered to the offender.

The fourth and final scenario represents indirect punishment avoidance. This is another concept that is not recognized in deterrence theory. However, it is the last concept that Stafford and Warr (1993) argued should be incorporated into the reconceptualized deterrence theory. A person walked into a convenience store and was shopping in the candy aisle. This person was a bystander whom watched another individual put a piece of candy in their pocket and attempt to walkout. However, in this scenario, the clerk of this convenience store did not catch the individual stealing this piece of candy. As a result, the police were not called, this person was not arrested, and punishment was not administered. This is an example of indirect punishment avoidance, because the bystander saw this individual commit a crime for which they did not get caught or punished for. This concept is not included in deterrence theory. As such,

Stafford and Warr (1993) note that this concept should be, as it is an experience with crime that an individual may have.

This focus of the study includes all of the individuals within the chosen population, which is necessary for a comprehensive study. This study will complement extant drunk driving literature, as well as introduce punishment avoidance as an additional concept of the deterrence theory. This expansion will help guide future deterrence researchers to include all concepts of deterrence theory in their study designs.

The results of this study will draw conclusions that will provide a foundation for future reconceptualized deterrence theory studies.

Study Purpose

This research study was designed to assess the necessity of the inclusion of

11 punishment avoidance into deterrence theory. The traditional theory only recognized individuals of either the general or specific population, which is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Deterrence theory. Traditional deterrence models have been dichotomized into two parts, specific and general deterrence (Cullen et al., 2013).

However, Stafford and Warr (1993) argued that individuals are not exclusively subject one population or experience. While deterrence theory is concerned with achieving deterrence by administering punishment (Braga & Weisburd, 2012), the reconceptualized deterrence theory acknowledges that punishment exists, but is not guaranteed to be administered after the commission of a crime. As such, Stafford and

Warr (1993) believe that this theory overlooks certain direct and indirect experiences that individuals may also have with punishment avoidance.

Instead, individuals are subject to both direct and indirect experiences of

12 punishment and punishment avoidance. The inclusion of punishment avoidance expands deterrence theory; hence, the reconceptualization of deterrence theory, which is shown in

Figure 3.

Figure 3. The reconceptualized deterrence theory. This figure demonstrates an application of punishment avoidance into deterrence theory as Stafford and Warr (1993) suggested.

The expansion allows deterrence theory to be independent of other criminological theories for explanation. For example, deterrence theory has previously utilized the social learning theory for further explanation and clarification (Kleck, Sever, Li, & Gertz,

2005). Social learning theory is one way of clarifying how individuals can or cannot be deterred. However, the reconceptualized deterrence theory is a singular theory that is able to gauge and explain how individuals are directly and indirectly affected by

13 punishment and punishment avoidance.

To test the validity and necessity of punishment avoidance, the crime of drinking and driving was evaluated. Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox (2012) note that crime is a function of both direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. They further suggest that researchers who consider all four of these factors will find more support for deterrence theory. For this reason, the objective of this study is to determine how significant punishment avoidance is. College students will be surveyed about their direct and indirect experience(s) with punishment and punishment avoidance in regards to drinking and driving behaviors.

Studies of deterrence doctrines will become more complex with this reconceptualization. Therefore, it is imperative to test its validity to understand how advantageous the inclusion of this concept truly is. This study will help policymakers design programs that will increase the certainty of punishment, and thereby, hopefully reduce offending (Cullen et al., 2013). Understanding and applying all four factors within this study will help determine where individuals of this sample group fall on the deterrence spectrum and how policymakers can impose future policy implications.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

An extensive amount of extant research and literature has paired deterrence theory with alcohol impaired driving. This crime is one that effects the offender, the victim and those within both individuals’ intimate social networks; therefore, the traditional deterrence theory has been easily applicable, as it punishes the offender in an attempt to discourage their future offending, while attempting to dissuade those affected to not commit the same crime. However, the application of this theory has had many shortcomings.

Stafford and Warr (1993) argue that deterrence theory lacks the ability to recognize two vital experiences: 1) individuals that commit crime and do not receive punishment (direct punishment avoidance), and 2) individuals that have knowledge of individuals that commit crime and do not receive punishment (indirect punishment avoidance). Deterrence researchers have exceedingly lacked in focusing on an individual’s experience(s) with avoiding punishment. Deterrence theory assumes two populations, the general public and specific offenders. As such, this assumption overlooks the many individuals that are fused between direct and indirect experiences with both punishment and punishment avoidance, which are each a function of crime

(Sitren & Applegate, 2007).

For the purpose of this study, alcohol impaired driving will be analyzed when applying the reconceptualized deterrence theory. This is critical, because this study and future deterrence doctrines will be multifaceted compared to extant literature as it is more

15 complex, yet more appropriate for testable hypotheses of the reconceptualized deterrence theory. The following will delve into both the research and the literature, evaluate the findings, and introduce a set of independent variables that one could use to study the implementation of Stafford and Warr’s punishment avoidance. Furthermore, this study is supplementary to extant deterrence literature. It presents and analyzes an understudied, yet vital concept in material regarding the pairing of drunk driving and deterrence.

Theoretical Framework

Traditionally when trying to characterize crime and criminality, the United States criminal justice system has utilized two distinctive processes of deterrence. This dichotomous method attempts to recognize the processes of deterrence through understanding the application of each term and the context of deterrence theory.

Contingent upon the circumstance, a certain type of deterrence is applied: general deterrence or specific deterrence. For instance, one could utilize general deterrence to explain how the general population would be dissuaded from committing a crime due to the penalties that criminals would undergo due, if caught, due to the commission of the crime (Sitren & Applegate, 2012). Further, one could utilize specific deterrence to explain that punishing offenders for the crimes they have committed will discourage those same offenders from committing crime in the future. This restrictive contrast, however, assumes that there are only two types of people: individuals who do not commit crime and individuals who commit crime(s); then further assumes that both types of people learn from punishment and ultimately abstain from criminality.

Still, deterrence theory fails to address the possibility that individuals may commit

16 crime(s) and/or know others who have committed crime(s) and have gone without punishment. This is punishment avoidance. Stafford and Warr (1993) assert that all individuals may be influenced by direct punishment and punishment avoidance (specific deterrence redefined), as well as experiencing punishment and punishment avoidance indirectly when others are punished (general deterrence redefined) (Sitren & Applegate,

2012).

One must examine Stafford and Warr’s application of punishment avoidance in the reconceptualized deterrence theory. It is necessary to understand that this concept is applied to both existing concepts: general and specific deterrence. In doing this, the reconceptualized deterrence theory was developed. This theory is applicable to all individuals within a population as each person is fused with one or more experiences with direct and/or indirect punishment and/or punishment avoidance.

Historical foundation of classical criminology. Classical criminology has a longstanding history in the United States, which was established during the 18th century by philosopher Cesare Beccaria (Paternoster, 2010). While the United States’ primary mode of punishment has been through incarceration to achieve deterrence, one must first recognize the conception of Cesare Beccaria’s Classical Theory of Criminology. Cullen,

Agnew and Wilcox (2013) noted that this theory criticized and proposed reforms for the legal system in the 1700’s, which dominated criminality concepts for nearly 100 years.

Beccaria’s theory offers the notion that people are rational thinkers. This theory suggests that individuals are concerned with minimizing their pain and maximizing their pleasure, and that their efforts to do so often lead them to the commission of a crime, unless they

17 are deterred by the threat of consequences and punishment.

Beccaria used the basis of classical criminology from Thomas Hobbes’s Theory of

Society, which notes “that the pursuit of self-interest often leads people to harm one another and that individuals must give up some of their liberty for the sake of ‘peace and security,’” (Cullen et al., 2013). As a result, people formed nations that established laws and administered punishments to deter individuals from harming one another in the pursuit of their passions. These nations recognized that in order to be effective, punishments should meet certain criteria. Beccaria designated the characteristics of effective punishment by recommending that such punishments should be arranged by the sovereign, or representative of the state (not decided by the judges), clearly stated, proportionate to the crime, swift and certain (Carpenter, 2010; Sweet & Groarke, 2010).

Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox (2013) noted that the general and concluding theorem of

Beccaria’s argument was the following: “a punishment may not be an act of violence, of one, or of many against a private member of society, it should be public, immediate and necessary; the least possible in the case given; proportioned to the crime, and determined by the laws.”

This Enlightenment era was a critical time for Beccaria and his ideas, as there were smaller communities that shared similar values. These values included public humiliation as a form of punishment. Beccaria’s beliefs and practice of a utilitarian approach was to create a better society that deterred the general public from committing crimes, and to prevent criminals from repeating crimes (Beccaria, 1872). Throughout this era, however, the threat of consequences and punishment dulled while the communal

18 punishment approach began to lose its effect and no longer served the greatest public good due to the nations and laws being established.

The United States then converted from communal punishment to incarceration.

The punishment being given to the offender was no longer in the presence of the public, but rather achieved through incapacitation inside jail and prison facilities, which was out of the public’s view. This transition was a result of the social contract being broken more frequently, which meant communal punishment no longer served the desired effect of deterrence.

Historical foundation of deterrence theory. Deterrence theory virtually descends from Enlightenment philosophers and classical criminology (Nagin &

Pogarsky, 2001). Classical philosophers focused their concepts around the recipe of the deterrent process: the certainty, severity and celerity of the punishment. It is the certainty and severity of punishment that formed the foundation to the contemporary theories of deterrence, such as the one in this study, the reconceptualized deterrence theory (Nagin,

Solow, & Lum, 2015).

The proximity of the criminal action and the punishment is critical in deterrence theory. Beccaria argued that when punishment quickly follows the crime, the ideas of

‘crime’ and ‘punishment’ will more likely be associated with one another in a person’s mind (Beccaria, 1872). When an individual avoids a punishment that is remote in time from the offense, the association between the criminal behavior and the punishment are strengthened, and as a result, discourages future criminal activity (Beccaria, 1872).

However, when an individual is able to avoid punishment entirely after the criminal act,

19 the certainty of the punishment will lose its effect, and in turn, will no longer discourage future criminal activity, which is punishment avoidance.

Although the conceptual foundation of this theory dates back to the 1700’s, interest in this criminological theory and the deterrent effect of legal sanctions became an intellectual interest in the mid 1960’s (Paternoster, 2010). The concept of deterrence is simple: the omission of engaging in criminality due to the outstanding fear of sanctions or punishment. Despite its simplistic definition, the concept serves as a significant premise of the United States’ current criminal justice system.

As mentioned, deterrence is composed of three concepts: the certainty, celerity and severity of punishment. Paternoster (2010) notes that empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that there are minimal deterrent effects for legal sanctions. The notion leading to this conclusion stems from caution and skepticism, because literature suggests that it is challenging to understand the how the criminal justice system aims to deter each person within society through the same mode of deterrence efforts. Some evidence suggests that confidence in non-legal sanctions, such as shame from individuals in one’s social network, are more effective in gaining compliance and achieving deterrence than legal threats of punishment, such as arrest and incarceration (Paternoster, 2010). This same evidence supports Beccaria’s previously mentioned concept – “that criminal offenders are rational actors, [who are] responsive to the incentives and disincentives associated with their actions;” yet, because of the criminal justice system’s delayed imposition of legal sanctions, the concept of punishment, therefore, is not satisfactorily constructed to work effectively (Paternoster, 2010, p. 765).

With the understanding of the certainty, severity and celerity of punishment within the deterrence theory, one must further understand both ends of the deterrence spectrum. This concept has traditionally been recognized as having two distinctive processes that vary depending on the application of the term and the context. Deterrence is situational, as a certain type of deterrence is applied to differing individuals: general deterrence or specific deterrence. To understand the definitions and application of general and specific deterrence, Stafford and Warr (1993) recognized and reconceptualized deterrence theory by including punishment avoidance as a key expansion to both types of deterrence (Cullen et al., 2013).

Contemporary foundation of deterrence theory. The reconceptualized deterrence theory developed by Mark C. Stafford and Mark Warr indicate that conventional distinctions of general and specific deterrence rests on flawed reasoning, which vaguely clarifies deterrence processes. These theorists argue beyond the two distinctions and proclaim that crime is a fusion between direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance, which affect perceptions of the certainty of punishment, and thereby crime (Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002). While no conceptualized theory is right or wrong, some are more useful than others. As a result, this reconceptualization is progressive and implies that it is unnecessary to detach both processes of deterrence from one another. Rather, Stafford and Warr advocate for a single theory that merges the distinctions together, which centers on both direct and indirect experiences with legal punishment and punishment avoidance.

General deterrence. General deterrence has been defined in various ways. This

21 concept has universally been recognized as the notion that the general population will be dissuaded from committing a crime due to the penalties that result from the commission of the crime (Braga & Weisburd, 2012; Stafford & Warr, 1993). This aims to reach the general public, all of whom are potential offenders, to the consequences of lawful punishment (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). However, in the last few years, the specificity of this definition has been questioned. With punishment avoidance being applied to general deterrence, the definition shifts. Stafford and Warr (1993) distinguish general deterrence as a vicarious penalty experience. This suggests that people of the general public have either observed or obtained knowledge about the punishment of others who have committed crime (Applegate & Sitren, 2007; Cullen et al., 2013).

In general, deterrence recognizes three aspects of potential consequences that affect the level of fear individuals may experience (Kelley, Fukushima, Spivak, & Payne,

2009). These three aspects are severity, certainty and celerity. Literature suggests that severity pertains to the magnitude of the potential consequence; certainty pertains to the probability of receiving this outcome as a result of criminal behavior; celerity pertains to the amount of time that elapses between the deviant behavior and the negative consequence that follows (Kelley et al., 2009).

Specific deterrence. Specific deterrence is the concept that punishing offenders for the crimes they have committed will deter those same offenders from committing crime in the future. This type of deterrence targets the offenders who have experienced penalties for their crimes and concerns itself with preventing them from reoffending

(Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Stafford and Warr (1993) distinguish specific deterrence

22 as the primary experience in which offenders have specifically been punished for their crime and are committed to deter them from committing further crime (Cullen et al.,

2013).

Punishment avoidance. Stafford and Warr (1993) suggest that punishment avoidance should be applied to both general and specific deterrence. This is the notion that individuals have avoided punishment for one or more crimes they have committed, or the idea that individuals were aware of other lawbreakers who have not received punishment for their crimes (Cullen et al., 2013; Tabbach, 2010). The reconceptualization of direct and indirect punishment avoidance into both processes of deterrence suggests that one single theory can merge the definitions together to properly suit a varied population. The contribution of punishment avoidance to deterrence material is vital, because many individuals are fused between both direct and indirect experiences with punishment.

Drinking and Driving

This study will utilize the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol as a means of measuring the newly-added concept of punishment avoidance into the reconceptualized deterrence theory. This offense is a common criminal activity that wobbles between being a minor or severe offense. It is important to understand literature that critically analyzes this offense, as the nature of the consequences can affect individuals in drastic ways. Many variables will be used with drunk driving terminology, which is also important to recognize and understand.

This study does not make a statement about drunk driving. This study rather uses

23 this crime in a manner that allows for richer research in regards to the concepts of the reconceptualized deterrence theory. There is much research regarding this offense, as well as collegiate-aged students direct and indirect experiences with the offense. This is the principle researcher’s rationale for using this criminal act, as it is such a robust way to measure criminal propensity and activity in this population.

Definition of driving under the influence (DUI/DWI). Issues concerning alcohol and traffic safety have been a significant issue, as well as the focal point of the national attention in recent decades. Drunk driving has received an immense amount of attention from those who have created anti-drunk driving organizations, as well as law enforcement agencies, and upwards through legislation. Exhaustive efforts were made within recent decades through legislative ratifications that have been funded by private organizations, communities and states that share the same goal of deterring drunk driving

(Dang, 2008). Impaired driving laws and programs function within our country as a general deterrent to those who consider driving a motor vehicle after they had been drinking.

Anti-drunk driving laws within each state serve as a message from legislature that they have become tougher on impaired driving crimes due to the severity of the offense.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) vehicle code defines driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the following manner: it is

“illegal to operate a motorized vehicle with the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of

0.08% or higher for a person 21 years old or older” (DMV, 2016). The DMV uses each term, DUI and DWI, synonymously; therefore, for the purpose of this study, driving

24 under the influence (DUI) will be used for uniformity. There are a plethora of penalties for the first, second and subsequent offenses of drunk driving. Each penalty is considered a type of punishment, because it is listed as such under California’s law. Legislation has become more critical of impaired drivers and their punishment in the last two decades.

Legislators wanted the nation to understand the severity of their laws to encourage general deterrence. The legal system features many laws, ordinances and police practices that have a target to reduce and deter drunk driving (Rookey, 2012). The Administrative

License Revocation (ALR) was enacted to revoke or suspend any one person’s driver’s license if they either refused to take the BAC test, or failed the BAC test. This law was implemented within 40 of the 51 states by 1997 (Dang, 2008).

Impaired driving was introduced as a prevalent issue due to the high rates of impaired driving accidents. Therefore, legislators also aimed to deter drunk driving through the increase of alcohol-related driving laws. Consistent with the Administrative

License Revocation (ALR), the legislators first beneficial alcohol-related driving law was one that created a ceiling for an individual’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Dang

(2008) found that many states passed a 0.10% law during the 1980s deeming it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.10% or higher. All 50 states were in agreement and enacted the passage of this 0.10% or higher law by 1997. The passage of the BAC of

0.10% or higher law was a strict one that only became more and more punitive over time.

Despite every state enforcing the 0.10% or higher law, legislators in different states started to pass a stricter law for impaired drivers making it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a BAC of 0.08% or higher (Dang, 2008). By 2005, every state enacted the

0.08% BAC law. This application of the law lead to a reduction in alcohol-related driving accidents between 1997 and 2005.

Definition of blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The alcohol consumed in one’s body is measured by the weight of alcohol in a certain volume of their blood

(NHTSA, 2016a). This is recognized as the blood alcohol concentration, better known as, “BAC.” This measurement is centered on grams per deciliter (g/dl), which is indicative of the alcohol that is in each deciliter of an individual’s blood (Durna, 2005).

However, one is not only able to measure a person’s BAC through testing their blood, but also through their breath, their urine and their saliva (Durna, 2005). The primary method used by law enforcement agencies is the breathalyzer, because it has been determined to be the least invasive.

In a guide to help the public understand BAC and alcohol impairment, the United

States Department of Transportation (USDOT) stated that alcohol is absorbed directly through the walls of the stomach and the small intestine, where it seeps into the bloodstream, and travels throughout the body, all the way up to the brain. Because of the body’s quick absorption of alcohol, one’s BAC can be measured within 30 to 70 minutes after their first drink. However, how fast a person’s BAC rises varies based on numerous factors. For starters, the more alcoholic beverages one drinks, the higher their BAC rises.

Consequently, one’s BAC rises higher the faster one consumes alcohol than when one drinks over a longer period of time. This is found in many cases of binge drinking. As noted, BAC is calculated on an individual basis, especially among different genders.

Women tend to have less water and more body fat per pound of body weight than men.

Because alcohol does not enter fat cells as easily as other cells, more alcohol is stored in the blood of women. Another important factor is a person’s weight, because the more an individual weighs the more there is water present in the body. This water weight dilutes the alcohol, therefore, lowering the BAC. The final factor that affects BAC is food in the stomach, because the absorption of the alcohol will be slowed if one has had something to eat prior to consuming alcohol.

To understand the various stages of impairment, the typical effects of alcohol consumption and the predictable effects on driving, the National Highway Transportation

Safety Administration has created a diagram to illustrate each of the following: At BAC

.02%, the typical effects are some loss of judgement, relaxation, a slightly warm body and an altered mood. The predicted effects on driving are a decline in visual functioning and a decline in the ability to perform two tasks simultaneously. At BAC .05%, the typical effects are exaggerated behavior, some loss of muscle behavior (ability to focus one’s eyes), impaired judgement, typically a good feeling (buzzed), a lowered alertness and a release of inhibition. The predicted effects on driving are reduced coordination, a reduced ability to track moving objects, difficulty steering and a reduced response to emergency driving situations. At BAC .08%, the typical effects are poor muscle coordination (balance, speech, vision, reaction time, hearing), a tougher time detecting danger, and impaired judgement, self-control, reasoning and memory. The predicted effects on driving are lack of concentration, short-term memory loss, speed control, a reduction in the ability to process information (signal detection and visual search) and impaired perception. At BAC .10%, the typical effects are a clear deterioration of

27 reaction time and control, slurred speech, poor coordination and slowed thinking. The predicted effects on driving are a reduced ability to maintain lane position and brake appropriateness. At BAC .15%, the typical effects are far less muscle control than normal, possible vomiting and a significant loss of balance. The predicted effects on driving are a substantial impairment in vehicle control, attention to driving task and necessary visual and auditory information processing.

Though there are many studies that find significant impairment at a BAC of .05%, these studies do not find substantial impairment at that level. These studies find that all are intoxicated at .08% and pose a primary threat to other drivers on the road; therefore, making a BAC of .08% the standard illegal limit (Talpins, 2014). As a result, every state in the United States has passed a law making it illegal to drive with a .08% BAC or higher. This means that one-eighth of one percent of an individual’s blood is consumed with alcohol, and anything higher than that can be severely injurious. However, because one sip of alcohol can impair a person’s ability to drive, a driver can be arrested with sufficient probable cause by law enforcement with a BAC below .08% based on the driver’s behavior (NHTSA, 2016a).

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). The MADD community has a meaningful place within the criminal justice system. Through the years, the public has grown intolerant to crime and criminals, and in return, citizens have been on the quest for retribution, deterrence and incarceration (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 1997). In pursuit of these punishments, research shows that the public support punitive punishment such as harsher courts and longer sentences. There are some organizations that exist to make the

28 public aware of offense issues and negative sanctions for offenders. For example, the grassroots lobbying group, MADD, has played a significant role in directing America’s attention to the severity of drunk driving and firmly embracing deterrence-based countermeasures.

The establishment of MADD was significant in the history of drinking and driving policies in Unites States. The first Unites States law against drunk driving was passed in 1910 in New York. However, other state governments and the federal government did not pass similar laws until MADD was founded in 1980 (Ying et al.,

2013). This organization spearheaded a wave of lobbying and campaigns, which led to a trend of more complete drinking and driving laws and policies in the United states.

Years before MADD was established, the Prohibition was an alcohol-based phenomenon. A cultural attitude existed within America that believed that drinking translated to one “living the good life,” which lead one to believe that alcoholic accidents were abnormal rather than criminal (Lerner, 2011). This generated a care-free attitude, that through the years, has been modified with educational programs, public service announcements, sobriety checkpoints and mandatory jail time for DUI’s. MADD was determined to change the leniency of prosecutors and judges through lobbying and pressing legislators to pass tougher laws for alcohol related offenses (Lerner, 2011).

Through MADD’s motivation to raise drinking and driving awareness, “accidents” became “crashes,” and concern for alcohol related incidents increased because this organization educated the public on safety issues that come along with drunk driving

(Durna, 2005; Loewit-Phillips, Melody, & Goldbas, 2013).

Along with the language modifications, the MADD organization helped bring about one of the first positive cultural changes regarding alcohol use since the prohibition

(Marshall & Oleson, 1996). Several research studies provide details about how the

MADD techniques that have had a deterrent effect upon the incidence of alcohol related crashes (Loewit-Phillips et al., 2013; McCarthy & Zilliak, 1990). Some strategies employed by the MADD organization have been to affect public policy through legislative lobbying, advocating for passage of laws to prosecute drunk drivers, serving as a support group for victims, and applying pressure to alcohol distributors and individual states to implement steeper taxes and limitations on the sales of alcoholic beverages.

MADD has been most successful with their push for 0.08% BAC in all states. This law alone is estimated to have saved 600-800 lives per year (Talpins, 2014).

Prior to MADD’s inception, drunk drivers experienced punishment avoidance.

They were committing the offense of driving while intoxicated, but not receiving punishment that would deter them or someone else from committing the same crime.

Through MADD’s lobbying, and proactive and interactive programs throughout the communities, they have been able to solidify laws that are geared towards those offenders. The principal goal of these laws, ordinances and police practices has been to reduce drunk driving through the threat of punishment (certainty) (Rookey, 2012; Ross,

1984).

Demographics

Age: Underage-drinkers versus Legal-aged drinkers.

Underage drinking. This concept may be the largest piece of the higher

30 education drinking puzzle. A study suggested that in 1998, more than 1,400 collegiate students died from alcohol-related injuries including motor vehicle crashes (Hingson &

Heeren, 1999). This same study reveals that of the 8 million college students in the

United States during that year, more than 25% of students drove under the influence of alcohol and over 38% rode with a drinking driver.

Youthful drinking draws concerns on many platforms. Two out of three underage students reported drinking within the last 30 days (Zimmerman & DeJong, 2003).

Although these youthful drinkers tend to drink on fewer occasions, they drink more per occasion than students of legal drinking age. Reports that compared 1999 and 2001 show a growth in collegiate students ages 18-24 who engaged in drinking and driving. Of the

8,242 traffic deaths that occurred in 2001, young adults aged 18-24 were responsible for

4,216 (51%), which were alcohol related (Hingson & Heeren, 1999). This study further suggests that 1,349 (32%) of the alcohol-related traffic deaths in that age group were collegiate students. Roughly 5,000 people who are underage drinkers died as a result of underage drinking.

In 2006, The National Institute of Health (NIH) suggested that 38% of those deaths – equivalent to 1,900 – are from motor vehicle accidents (NIH, 2006a). The proportion of this age group who reported driving under the influence of alcohol increased from 26.5% to 31.4%, which equates to an additional 500,000 persons in the span of two years (Hingson & Heeren, 1999). Statistics of this magnitude illustrate that underage drinking at higher education institutions is a grave concern.

Minimum Level Drinking Age 21 (MLDA-21). Although California currently

31 enforces a minimum level drinking age of 21 years old (MLDA-21), in the past, the

United States exercised a far less restrictive regulation. The 21st amendment of the

Constitution repealed the prohibition of alcohol manufacturing, distribution and consumption in 1933, which resulted in the implementation of the MLDA-21 law within majority of the states (Wechsler & Nelson, 2010). While this law was enforced for a few decades, the specifics of this regulation were reformed during the 1970’s. This reform happened through the 20th amendment, where 18 to 20 year olds were granted suffrage and resulted in 21 states reducing their minimum level drinking age to 18 years old

(Wolfson, 1995). The objective of this modification was to parallel the drinking age with the voting age during the Vietnam War. With many states honoring this younger drinking age, there was not only a proliferation in alcohol sales and consumption, but also in alcohol-related traffic incidents. This was accompanied by the emergence of the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1968, where research on traffic safety increased (Wechsler & Nelson, 2010).

However, the MLDA-18 ultimately became unfavorable. As a result, Congress began pressuring the states during the mid-1980’s to raise their MLDA back to 21

(Dornier, Fauquier, Field & Budden, 2010). President Ronald Reagan and Congress cohesively produced something with permanency: The National Minimum Drinking Age

Act. Due to the 21st amendments mandate to regulate alcohol, the federal government could not expunge its content. As a result, President Reagan provided an alternative, which perhaps was a condition that states were unable to refuse. Research suggests that states refusing to comply with this gesture were challenged with legal headaches and

32 were vulnerable to millions in federal funding being pulled (Toomey, Rosenfeld, &

Wagenaar, 1996). In 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act distinctly required all states to “prohibit the purchase and public possession of alcohol for persons aged younger than 21 years in order to receive all of their federal highway funds;” this conclusively lead to a national MLDA-21 ratification (Wechsler & Nelson, 2010).

Within four years, all states unified their stance regarding the drinking age, which made the United States’ minimum level drinking age 21 years old in 1988 and is still in place in present day.

Effectiveness of MLDA-21. While there are current controversial recommendations of lowering the drinking age again to 18 years of age, Dornier et al.

(2010) suggest that there are strong emotions from the opposition. Some suggest that nationally ratifying MLDA-21 happened with the best of intentions, but it caused the very worst of outcomes. Just as the national prohibition effort condemned underage drinking, it did not end youthful drinking. Instead, it unintentionally drove youths to engage in underground drinking, where there was no lawful control (Dornier et al., 2010).

Aside from this recommendation, the effects of the minimum level drinking age of 21 years old (MLDA-21) have been progressive. Many studies have assessed the numerous outcomes, including traffic fatalities for youth, drunk driving convictions and crashes resulting in injury. Research reveals the higher the MLDA, the fewer issues regarding alcohol-based problems among youths (Toomey et al., 1996).

Status: Collegiate student versus non-collegiate status.

College students and the MLDA-21. During the 1990’s, institutions of higher

33 education grew in their concern about heavy drinking. Two of the grimmest problems surrounding student alcohol consumption are driving under the influence (DUI) and underage drinking (Zimmerman & DeJong, 2003). Several major studies have elicited the magnitude of alcohol-related problems among college students. Zimmerman and

DeJong (2003) addressed the scope of the problem as the National Institute on Alcohol

Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) characterized heavy drinking throughout higher education studies as wide-spread, dangerous and disruptive.

Colleges within the country vary in their policy restrictions for accessibility to alcohol. Each college has their own environment and culture, where some are more lax with their policies and some are more restrictive. An example of how tolerant some campuses may be is demonstrated in a national survey that discovered less than 1 in 10 underage students who consumed alcohol reported experiencing a consequence for violating their campuses’ alcohol policies (Wechsler & Nelson, 2010). This is considered punishment avoidance.

Due to the widespread American acceptance of drinking as a part of college life, both underage and of-age collegiate students tend to show a strong resistance towards policies regulating alcohol use on campus (Kelley et al., 2009). Literature suggests that

20% of college freshman begin drinking within their first year of college, which is considered to be an integral part of collegiate students’ social life (Segrist & Pettibone,

2009). Wechsler and Nelson (2010) stated that of college students between the ages of

18-20 years old, 75% of them have consumed alcohol within the past year, which illustrates both the opportunity and participation in underage drinking.

Studies have suggested that young adults have a higher prevalence of alcohol use disorders (16%), relative to any other age group; however, collegiate students drink more than same-aged non-college young adults (Colby, Colby, & Raymond, 2009). The

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) noted that the recommended daily limits for reasonable alcohol consumption are no more than two drinks for men or one drink for women per day. A standard drink is defined as one 12- ounce bottle of beer, one 5-ounce glass of wine or 1.5 ounces of a distilled spirit (NIH,

2006b). However, those among the young adult status are more likely to report past-year heavy episodic drinking, which is also known as binge drinking, (M: ≥5, F: ≥4 drinks per occasion) than any other age group (Colby et al., 2009).

Research and previous studies consistently show that in an individual’s lifetime, one tends to drink the heaviest in their late teens to mid-twenties (NIH, 2006b). Many studies show that college status confers a much greater risk for an individual’s heavy drinking, because students view college as a place to drink excessively. This is in part due to the college campus setting being a platform for socialization enhanced by students who have a desire to be socially successful (Dornier et al., 2010). As a result, when one merges both variables together, evidence shows that these young adult drinkers pose a serious threat to themselves while putting others at risk (Hingson & Heeren, 1999).

Collegiate students are more at risk to engage in binge drinking than other age groups. Colby, Swanton and Colby (2012) noted that young adults between the ages of

18-24 are more likely than any other age group to report heavy drinking within the past year (Colby, Swanton, & Colby, 2012). This study asserted that 2 in 5 college students

35 nationally participated in binge drinking on at least 1 occasion within the past two weeks.

Compared to same-aged peers not enrolled in college, 18-22-year-old college students reported considerably higher frequencies of past-month alcohol use (64.4% versus

53.2%), binge drinking (44.8% versus 38.3%), and heavy drinking (19.5% versus 13%)

(Colby et al., 2012). Collegiate status alone tends to augment a young adult’s experience with alcohol.

Despite the decline in recent decades of young adults’ capability of retrieving and consuming alcohol, collegiate students time and time again are the prime group that have yet to adapt to the MLDA-21. Studies have found that undergraduate students perceive binge drinking, defined as five or more drinks in one sitting for males and four or more for females, during college to be acceptable and even expected (Colby et al., 2009; Colby et al., 2012; Hingson & Heeren, 1999). Wechsler and Nelson (2010) asserted that college students are more inclined to participate in heavy drinking than peers who do not attend college, because of the college campus culture (Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler,

2005). This high risk group considers the collegiate experience a mutually exclusive experience that excuses them from reality for 4 years to engage in drinking and drunk behaviors; this group also tends to not view their behavior as problematic despite the negative consequences that may follow (Colby et al., 2012). These negative consequences not only include poor academic performance, but also drinking and driving offenses, which is the leading factor in 51% of motor vehicle deaths among 18-24 year olds (Colby et al., 2012; Hingson et al., 2005; Zimmerman & DeJong, 2003). While evidence suggests that excessive alcohol use may result in a host of adverse

36 consequences, collegiate students want the all-inclusive college experience at all costs.

Gender: Male versus female. Among the various variables that may affect an individual’s drinking pattern, gender may be the most prominent. Evidence in previous research has consistently demonstrated that gender is a leading factor that should be considered in alcohol research (Foster et al., 2014). Gender serves as a moderator between compulsive drinking and an individual’s status as a collegiate or non-collegiate.

While young adults are a broad category that encompass individuals with a collegiate status and non-collegiate-status, there are major distinctions between the two when concerned with drinking patterns.

Although the survey within this study recognized eight gender identity options, all

213 participants chose either the male or female gender. So, for the purpose of this study, one’s status will either be a male/female collegiate or a male/female non-collegiate. This study is exclusively focused on the males and females within the collegiate status; however, the following will provide evidence that dichotomizes male and female collegiate status from the general male and female young adult, non-collegiate status in regard to the severity of drinking habits.

The United States Surgeon General has targeted heavy drinking among collegiate students as a health goal for the country (HHS, 2010). To understand the prevalence of this issue, one must evaluate the evidence concerning this matter. It is imperative to concentrate on collegiate students within the young adult spectrum, and distinguish gendered habits and behaviors. Some studies have posited that males and females are equally likely to experiment with alcohol as a normative part of social development

(Mehta, Alfonso, Delaney, & Ayotte, 2014). However, some research studies provided data suggesting that gender differences exist when evaluating certain dimensions of alcohol use (Hummer, LaBrie, Lac, Sessoms, & Cail, 2012; Windle, 2003). Additional evidence shows that males drink more often, more heavily and experience more alcohol- related issues than female counterparts (Mehta et al., 2014). However, Mehta et al.

(2014) reveal that females are beginning to catch up to males, as mixed-gender interactions entertain heavy risks while same-gender interactions protect females from risks.

Colby et al. (2009) noted that young adults who are between the ages of 18-24 years old (inclusive of collegiate status) have a higher prevalence of alcohol use disorders when compared to any other age group. Within that age group, the rate of males is double that of females, which suggests that for every single female, there are two males suffering from an alcohol use disorder (Colby et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2006).

Individuals with this status are the frontrunners for alcohol use disorders, while males are twice as likely to suffer than females.

Research suggests that male and female collegiate students drink more than male and female young adults who are non-collegiate (Colby et al., 2009). For example, Colby

(2009) asserted that collegiate status young adults reported 62% of past-month alcohol use, 43% of binge drinking, and 19% of frequent binge drinking (M: ≥5, F: ≥4 drinks per occasion in the past 30 days) at higher percentages than same-aged non-collegiate young adults. Consistent to young adult male and females, collegiate males have higher alcohol use rates than collegiate females (Colby et al., 2009). Data reveal that male collegiate

38 students meet the criteria for alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse and binge drinking more frequently relative to their female collegiate counterparts (Pedrelli et al., 2011).

Meanwhile, collegiate females, relative to non-collegiate females had a higher rate of binge drinking (Windle, 2003).

According to Durna (2005), both males and females are significantly impaired at

0.08% in regards to their ability to properly drive a motorized vehicle. Many studies reveal that there is a correlation between one’s BAC rising and an increased chance of being involved in a traffic accident. Literature notes that drivers with a BAC of .08% are approximately 4 times more likely to crash than drivers with a BAC of zero.

Furthermore, Durna (2005) indicates that an individual’s BAC increases rapidly after a person reaches or exceeds a BAC of 0.08%. As a result, drivers are at least 12 times more likely to crash then drivers with a BAC of zero. However, this risk of crashing is greater for young males (NHTSA, 2016a).

Previous studies demonstrate that gender is a central factor to consider in alcohol research. Statistics within these previous studies established consistent drinking patterns among young adults, both collegiate and non-collegiate males and females. Although the gender gap for binge drinking is narrowing, females (42%) continue to trail males (59%) in that category (Colby et al., 2009; Wilsnack, Vogeltanz, Wilsnack, & Harris, 2000;

Zhong & Schwartz, 2010). This illustrates that both young adult males and collegiate males surpass young adult females and collegiate females when comparing the relationship between alcohol use, abuse and gender.

College Majors: Criminal Justice versus Non-Criminal Justice

Collegiate students are utilized in studies for many reasons. This group is a preferable sample population for researchers to examine ethical issues, as well as a great populace to perform extensive studies to determine their values, ethical attitudes and behaviors (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004). One study suggested that collegiate students provide for a convenience sample, as well as a group that have yet to experience extensive exposure to workplace influences and occupational pressures. Without the experience of those specific demands and subcultures, student samples are utilized for determining an individual’s orientation and attitude prior to entering their chosen career field (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004). Also, collegiate students offer the appropriate sample of individuals potentially entering certain fields. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the chosen collegiate populace are students within “the college of Health and Human

Services.” According to Bjerregaard and Lord (2004), it is imperative to target individuals who indicate a specific interest in certain career fields as they are useful for examining issues at hand and provide a practical comparison sample.

Cheating behavior is one of the most widely studied ethical issues on college campuses. Literature suggests two things: (1) individuals differ in how much perceived sanction threats influence whether they commit crimes, and (2) women tend to be more ethical than men (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004; Pogarsky, 2007). This is a variation of criminal propensity. Research has suggested that more criminal propensity meant less susceptibility to deterrence. However, recent evidence in the literature has suggests otherwise. Propensity and deterrence relationships may be underdeveloped as findings

40 on this topic come largely from subject populations with low to moderate criminal propensity (Pogarsky, 2007). Researchers have discovered that a high proportion of collegiate student’s self-report engaging in cheating behavior, which is indicative of their attitudes towards that certain behavior and what influences them (Bjerregaard & Lord,

2004).

One study suggested that criminal justice majors and other majors were both influenced by the same possibilities – the shame from the potential consequences of getting caught cheating and the moral belief that cheating is dishonest (Tibbetts, 1998).

Conversely, another study suggested that criminal justice majors were found to be more vulnerable to influence from their friends’ behavior, while other majors were motivated by the perceived pleasure from such a risky behavior (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004). What motivates both groups of students are either the influences from their peers, or the pleasure from the committing the crime, and both with the possibility of not getting caught and ultimately bypassing punishment. These two acts from both groups of students is interpreted by the reconceptualized deterrence theory as being motivated by the chance of not being caught, which is both direct and indirect punishment avoidance.

As cheating behavior is found to be the standard indicative behavior among collegiate students, this study will acknowledge the findings in previous studies and apply its discoveries to drinking behaviors. Considering that criminal justice officials are empowered individuals that should possess certain distinct values different from the general population, this study aimed to assess whether those few clear-cut distinctions in cheating behavior material exists when analyzing drinking behaviors (Bjerregaard &

Lord, 2004). One distinction found in previous literature was that health profession students, including criminal justice majors, had lower rates of binge drinking than students in other majors (Gray & Brown, 2009). However, this literature lacks the depth of exploration into what influences each individual’s behavior (i.e., general deterrence, specific deterrence, punishment or punishment avoidance).

Characteristics of the law enforcement occupational culture vary due to the wide range of ethically tempting circumstances and situations. Bjerregarrd and Lord (2004) specifically noted that police officers may be involved in activities that expose them to temptations that are seldom faced in most other professions. These temptations include the exposure to large sums of cash, various drugs in small to large amounts, and the ability to use force to accomplish compliance. Therefore, integrity and trustworthiness are prominent core values within the law enforcement occupational culture (Conser &

Russell, 2000). The police code of ethics exists to “ensure that all peace officers are fully aware of their individual responsibility to maintain their own integrity and that of their department” (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004, p. 264; Roberg, Crank, & Kuykendall, 2000).

As such, prevention practices, such as the multistage recruitment and hiring processes, are vital in this occupation. This increases the opportunity for hiring agencies to identify the most qualified prospects and disqualify those with behavioral and/or attitudinal shortcomings (Gray, 2011).

The quality and character of police recruits have been the leading concerns for law enforcement agencies within the United States since the early 1990’s (Gray, 2011).

These concerns restrict some individuals from becoming a part of the police force. As

42 such, law enforcement agencies attempt to improve the caliber of their recruits through various techniques that were implemented to identify and eliminate unqualified applicants from the law enforcement field. Gray (2011) suggested that police departments target collegiate students as new police recruits, which is the same group with the highest statistics for binge drinking and alcohol-impaired vehicular collisions.

Alcohol consumption in excessive amounts by law enforcement applicants might raise issues of immaturity and poor judgment that hiring agencies may wish to further investigate, while the hiring process for other career fields is not as extensive (Gray,

2011).

Law enforcement officials that import distinct values into their professions should occupy these values prior to their employment (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004). Therefore, prospects interested in this field, particularly those hopeful for a career in law enforcement, should possess distinctive values than those in other professions. However, despite criminal justice collegiate students’ interests and occupational pursuits in law enforcement, this group is not free of lawbreakers or individuals that do not possess these distinct core values. As such, this group provided for an opportune sample of individuals potentially entering the police force that range freely on the criminal propensity continuum.

The Reconceptualized Deterrence Theory

Punishment – DUI/DWI arrest/pulled over roadside checkpoint. Punishment could possibly reduce the likelihood of an offender repeating a criminal act. Deterrence theorists assume that both the self and others learn from punishment – personal

43 experiences with punishment for offending are expected to reduce a person’s inclination to offend by increasing the perceived risk of punishment (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998).

In order for any punishment to deter, a perception of consequences and an outcome must be communicated to the potential offender (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998; Prather, 2011).

If an individual is not familiar with the punishment associated with the offense, the fear of punishment would not serve as a deterrent; therefore, the deterrent effect would potentially be severely impacted (Prather, 2011). Literature suggests that deterrence is upheld on the logic that laws should be utilized as a way to control rational decision making, and punishment should be utilized as a means of external control over drinking and driving (Fradella, 2000).

A conservative climate with a tough on crime approach emerged during the

1980’s, with particularly tougher laws concerning drunk driving. Due to the extensive damage of drinking and driving, such as loss of life and extraordinary expenditures, many public policy concerns surfaced in regards to this specific offense (Prather, 2011).

Research indicates that local, state and national standards were created to challenge sanctions associated with drinking behaviors in order to deter drunk driving (Fradella,

2000). During the administration, the presidential commission on drunk driving pressed states to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 (Prather, 2011). This offense became recognized as a neglected social problem that endangered the community, which encouraged a public demand for punitive sentencing.

This study’s utilization of roadside checkpoint as an indicator of one’s punishment experience may seem controversial. As a result, the rationale for this

44 utilization must be explained. In the traditional deterrence framework, what deters an individual from committing an offense is the prospect of pain, which is something that is unpleasant, and therefore, is something to be avoided (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998).

Within this framework, scholars have referred to pain as punishment, because punishment involves the intention to inflict discomfort, anxiousness, humiliation and apprehension on the individual to whom punishment is directed towards. Piquero and

Paternoster (1998) asserted that punishment is comprised of a class of experiences that share the common element of deliberate infliction of pain and unpleasantness, which any rational person wishes to avoid.

Specific referents of punishment include jail, a criminal conviction or an arrest. A less obvious referent of punishment involves intentional infliction of anxiousness and humiliation, such that the experience is one that an individual would wish to avoid in the future, and therefore it may be construed as punishment (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998).

Therefore, it is plausible that being pulled over roadside at a sobriety checkpoint involves elements of discomfort, anxiousness, humiliation and apprehension, which is an experience a rational being would choose to avoid, even if the checkpoint resulted in no further consequences. Piquero and Paternoster (1998) note that sobriety checkpoints are intended as a minor punishment by law enforcement officials, because they prompt anxiety and apprehension. Because sobriety checkpoints are an integral part of the deterrent and punishment system of law enforcement officials, it would be illogical to exclude this threatening consequence of drunk driving. In sum, rational individuals would rather avoid sobriety checkpoints as they would any other punishment.

Punishment avoidance. Avoidance efforts to escape punishment may be a common feature of law breaking. There are several forms of avoidance, such as escaping the consequences of committing a crime, fleeing the scene, concealing incriminating evidence, influencing witnesses, lying, hiding and litigating (Tabbach, 2010). These avoidance efforts reduce expected punishment, and therefore, defeat the purpose of deterrence.

Deterrence presumes that humans are rational beings that consider the consequences of their actions and who are influenced by the consequences (Paternoster,

2010). As such, rational human beings are relatively free agents who are influenced by the benefits and costs of their actions. Crime is no different than other behavior, and criminals are no different than non-criminals – what differs across people are their assessments of the costs and benefits of different lines of action (Paternoster, 2010).

Thus, the utility of crime is equal to the sum of the benefits of crime, so when an individual commits the offense of driving while intoxicated, that individual is risking the cost of crime for the benefit that comes from it. However, when punishment never takes place, a person experiences punishment avoidance. This experience grants momentum to repeat the offense, because punishment is unlikely to follow. Punishment avoidance may do more to encourage crime than punishment does to discourage criminality (Sitren &

Applegate, 2007). Avoidance of punishment contradicts deterrence, which is why

Stafford and Warr argue to include the term in the reconceptualized deterrence theory

(Cullen et al., 2013).

Perceived certainty – self and other, and perceived severity – self. Deterrence

46 theory proposes that there are three dimensions of legal punishment that may influence one’s offending decisions. These dimensions are the perceived certainty, severity and celerity of the potential punishment (Pogarsky, 2007). To evaluate deterrence, the latter dimension (celerity) is rarely investigated. Research suggests that the perceived certainty and the perceived severity are more utilized in literature that measures deterrence and punishment (Pogarsky, 2007). Likewise, studies on deterrence based laws in relation to drunk driving have produced significant findings when measuring both certainty and severity in relations to drinking behaviors (Prather, 2011). Legal punishment is more costly when it is certain (more likely than not to be a consequence of crime) and severe

(greater in magnitude) (Paternoster, 2010). These studies have found that the perceived certainty and severity of punishment more accurately reflect the effectiveness of deterrence based drunk driving laws and punishments. However, if a potential offender believes that their criminal behavior will not meet with an arrest or punishment, the perception of the certainty of punishment and the severity of that punishment will not influence the potential offenders behavior (Prather, 2011).

The measurement of the perceived certainty of punishment for one’s self and another vary, as well as the perceived severity of punishment for the self. Research notes that these perceptions are modified by experiences, both one’s own experiences and the experience of others. Paternoster (2010) suggested that a person’s perceived certainty of punishment for themselves stems from their own history of criminal behavior and arrest outcomes, while a person’s perceived certainty of punishment for others stems from that individual’s criminal background and arrest. To produce accurate measurements of

47 drunk driving laws, participants must be allowed to consider how the impact of the punishment would affect their own lives (Prather, 2011). People generally increase their perceptions of the risk of punishment when they get caught for the commission of a crime, while those who commit a crime and are not caught or arrested have a lower perception of their certainty of punishment (Paternoster, 2010). While the perception of certainty of punishment seems to act as a moderate deterrent factor, the perceived severity does not seem to be as effective, but is necessary in to measure within this theory.

Other measures of personal experience: (1) one’s moral evaluation of drinking and driving, and (2) threat of informal sanctions. Scholars presume that moral beliefs and informal sanctions have both direct and indirect effects on one’s decision to drink and drive. Although the direct effect of these variables is through non- deterrence mechanisms, moral beliefs, in fact, provide a source of inhibition (Piquero &

Paternoster, 1998). As a result, the indirect effects of moral beliefs and informal sanctions operate as a deterrent mechanism when they affect one’s behavior through perceptions of formal punishment threats. Literature suggests that individuals who morally condemn drinking and driving are also likely to think that such behavior will be confronted with effective formal social control; therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the more morally extreme an offense is, the more certain and severe punishment will follow its commission (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Ultimately, moral beliefs are a part of the deterrent process, because moral beliefs inhibit crime indirectly, which affects one’s perceptions of punishment. Likewise, informal punishment inhibits crime through

48 non-deterrence mechanisms. When inhibition occurs through the perceived punishment following the commission of a crime, informal sanctions, too, are an integral piece of the deterrence process.

Informal threats of punishment are a significant predicator of future drinking and driving behavior. Literature notes that this variable influences one’s decision to not engage in the offense of drinking and driving in the future in contrast to formal sanctions

(Prather, 2011). Previous studies have found that one’s moral evaluation of drinking and driving fortify the potential offender’s perceptions against drunk driving behavior.

Indirect experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Stafford and Warr argue that these experiences are relevant to the deterrence theory. Piquero and

Paternoster (1998) note that these variables consist of one’s reactions to both personal experiences and vicarious experiences of punishment and punishment avoidance. The argument is grounded on the basis that individuals, whether members of the general public or a punished offender, are likely to have a combination of these experiences.

Although these experiences differ from each other and may have contrary effects on the threat of punishment, they are both, nonetheless, a critical part of deterrence mixture

(Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). A component of this is an individual’s understanding of the punishment and punishment avoidance experiences of others.

Other measures of indirect experience: (1) social networks approval/disapproval of drinking and driving. Social approval or denial of a crime influence one’s decision making. Previous studies suggest that social variables should be included in deterrence studies that are associated with drunk driving, because social

49 desirability is linked to an increase in drinking and driving (Prather, 2011). The acceptance or denial of one’s social group is important in an individual’s conceptualization of the perceived problems that may occur if they are caught drinking and driving (Fradella, 2000). Studies suggest that having friends who approve of drinking and driving and engage in the offense themselves reduce the threat and credibility of the law, which ultimately sabotages deterrence. The traditional deterrent concepts such as certainty, severity and celerity strengthen the inhibitors moral commitment to social acceptance or disapproval (Prather, 2011).

Projections of drinking and driving. Projections, or intentions, to deviate from social norms to commit criminal offenses have been utilized successfully in previous deterrence literature (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Research suggests that there is a particularly high correlation between an individual’s intentions and actual behavior.

In sum, this research study was designed to examine of the inclusion of the punishment avoidance concept within the reconceptualized deterrence theory.

Specifically, this study addresses and explores the following:

Hypotheses

1. There will be no difference between criminal justice and non-criminal justice

students on their act of drinking and driving.

2. Criminal justice majors will be more impacted than non-criminal justice majors

by their direct and indirect experiences with punishment.

3. Criminal justice majors will be more impacted than non-criminal justice majors

by their direct and indirect experiences with punishment avoidance.

Research Questions

1. Does the knowledge of DUI/DWI laws deter collegiate students from committing

the offense?

2. Does the perception of severity of punishment for DUI/DWI deter collegiate

students from offending?

3. Does committing the offense and receiving punishment deter collegiate students

from reoffending? (Specific deterrence)

a. Does committing the offense and having gone without punishment deter

collegiate students from reoffending? (Direct punishment avoidance)

4. Does knowing someone (social network) who has committed the offense and

received punishment deter collegiate students from committing the offense?

(Indirect punishment)

a. Does knowing that some individuals avoid punishment entirely deter

collegiate students from committing the offense? (Indirect punishment

avoidance)

5. Do criminal justice majors differ from non-criminal justice students in terms of

their morality?

6. Given that previous research has discovered gender differences in terms of

morality, ethical attitudes, and behaviors, do differences between criminal justice

and non-criminal justice students remain consistent when the gender of the

student is considered?

Chapter 3

Methodology

This analysis provides a contribution to extant deterrence and drunk driving literature. This research study aimed to analyze a specific sample group in regards to the reconceptualized deterrence theory and their experiences with drunk driving. The population of interest were undergraduate criminal justice students broadly divided between declared and undeclared criminal justice students, and students within other majors at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS).

The flyers contained both a URL address and a QR barcode with directions to access the online Qualtrics survey. These flyers were disseminated to nine classes during the month of February in the Spring 2018 semester. The following will provide details on this study’s: research design, instrument, measurement of variables, sampling procedures, data collection, protection of human subjects, and finally, the data analysis plan.

Research Design

This study was designed to capture the significance of punishment avoidance, which is the newly-implemented concept of the reconceptualized deterrence theory. A quantitative, questionnaire-based design was utilized.

As will be described, an online survey measuring all the variables necessary for this study has not been constructed by past studies. Thus, the survey utilized in Piquero and Paternoster’s (1998) previous study was adopted and augmented to fit this research.

Instrument

As mentioned above, a modified version of Piquero and Paternoster’s (1998) survey was utilized to gather the primary data for this research. The online Qualtrics

Survey (see Appendix D) consisted of twenty-four numbered questions. Some questions were written to obtain demographic information of the participants, and the remaining questions were adopted and augmented from Piquero and Paternoster’s (1998) study.

The latter questions were constructed to measure concepts within the theory.

Questions 1 through 7 gathered demographic information about each participant’s gender, age, major, year classification, weight range, knowledge about California’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) law, and personal BAC impairment. The remaining survey questions, 8 through 24, measured each participants direct and indirect punishment and punishment avoidance experiences with drunk driving. These questions preserved

Piquero and Paternoster’s (1998) approach, yet some question content was altered to better suit the sample group.

The survey was organized in a fluid manner. In the order that the questions appear, the following themes could be discerned: types of punishment, previous engagement in the offense, estimates of being caught for the offense, the impact of the punishment if caught, moral beliefs, informal sanctions, direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance, and future projections of engagement in the offense. The order of questions maintained organization of the theory for the researcher.

Also, it was hoped that this order would provide the participant with predictability in question design as he/she/they continued the survey. This intent could also be recognized

53 in the physical design and layout of the questions regarding the participant’s personal impairment level and knowledge of California’s BAC law, punishment and punishment avoidance experiences with drunk driving and projected commitment to the offense.

Due to the number of question format similarities, certain words were bolded to differentiate the tone and direction of the question. This did not aid a bias, but rather assisted the participants in understanding the question being asked of them, because the wording was relatively alike. To ease survey fatigue, the design of the survey was constructed with mostly vertical multiple questions that required single choice answers.

There were four survey questions that were structured with drop-down list answer choices. The answer choices for these questions were ranges of numbers, so this design was utilized to simplify the answer options. A participant would spend roughly five minutes answering the entire survey.

Measurements of Variables

To faithfully examine the key concepts of the reconceptualization of deterrence theory, Stafford and Warr noted that at a minimum, an study must measure a person’s personal and vicarious experiences with both punishment and punishment avoidance

(Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Secondly, a study must measure the perceived certainty and severity of punishment for the self, as well as the perceived certainty and severity of punishment for others (likely those within one’s immediate social network) (Cullen et al.,

2013; Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Finally, a study must contain an indicator of criminal behavior. These are heavy data demands that could only optimally be obtained in a study that is specifically designed to examine this single theory.

Piquero and Paternoster conducted a study on secondary data that was collected in

1986 by Snortum and Berger (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Their research lacked

Stafford and Warr’s revision of the deterrence theory, and as such, provided a significant limitation for that study. This study, however, replicated Piquero and Paternoster’s study

(1998), then augmented it with Stafford and Warr’s revision to adequately suit this specific study.

Independent Variables

Punishment – drunk driving arrest. Participants were asked to specify the number of times they had been arrested for ‘driving under the influence’ (DUI) and

‘driving while intoxicated’ (DWI). This study exclusively focused on drunk driving.

Therefore, any arrest that was made for substances other than alcohol was not sufficient for this particular study. Response options include never, once, twice, and three or more times. For the purpose of this study, the form of avoidance that is measured is an individual committing the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol and eluding being pulled over roadside at a checkpoint, and ultimately, never being arrested.

Punishment – pulled over roadside checkpoint. Participants were asked to specify the number of times they had ever been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. This is a spot check where law enforcement officers stop cars at random to give drivers a blood alcohol test or a coordination test. Response options included never been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, once, twice, three, four and five or more times.

Punishment avoidance. This concept of the reconceptualized deterrence theory reflects the experience an individual has in violating the law without getting caught, and

55 therefore, avoids punishment. This variable was operationalized as the number of times each respondent reported drinking and driving without being arrested for a DUI/DWI, as well as never being pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint. Participants were asked to specify how many times they have drank then drove without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. Participants were also asked to specify how many times they drank then drove without being arrested for a DUI/DWI. Response options for both questions were the same, which included 0 times, 1-5 times, 6-10 times, 11-15 times, 16-20 times and 21 or more times.

Perceived certainty – self. The perceived certainty of punishment for one’s self was measured with one question. Participants were asked to estimate the chance of them being stopped by the police if they had consumed two shots of liquor and two pints of beer, then operated a motor vehicle. Response options included only 1 chance in 1,000, 1 chance in 100, 1 chance in 10, 1 chance in 2 and never.

Perceived certainty – other. The perceived certainty of punishment for another person was measured with a single question. Participants were asked what they believed the chances were of someone in their social network being stopped by the police after consuming two shots of liquor and two pints of beer, then operating a motor vehicle.

Response options included only 1 chance in 1,000, 1 chance in 100, 1 chance in 10, 1 chance in 2 and never.

Perceived severity – self. To measure this variable, participants were asked to identify how great of an affect an arrest for a DUI/DWI would have on their ability to conduct their personal life. Response options included not a problem, slight problem,

56 moderate problem, and ruin my life.

Other measures of personal experience. Two other measures are included in this analysis as they are considered a part of an individual’s collective fund of personal experiences: 1) one’s moral evaluation of drinking and driving, and 2) the threat of formal sanctions (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Researchers presume that moral beliefs and informal sanctions each have direct and indirect effects on drinking and driving.

Piquero and Paternoster (1998) note that the direct effects of these variables are through non-deterrence mechanisms, which are moral beliefs and informal sanctions. Our moral beliefs tend to align with those in our social network – when social networks restrain us, they do so as part of a social bonding process (Cullen et al., 2013). The calculation of crime may vary by one’s morality (Pogarsky, 2007). As humans, we believe that those who morally condemn drinking and driving are also likely to believe that such behavior will be confronted with effective formal social control. It is reasonable for individuals to expect that the more morally egregious an offense is, the more certain and severe the punishment will be following its commission (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Moral beliefs are a part of the deterrence process, because they inhibit crime indirectly by affecting one’s perceptions of sanction threats. Researchers make the same prediction with respect to informal sanctions.

To measure moral beliefs, participants were asked: “Speaking for yourself, do you feel that it is or is not morally acceptable for you to drive your car after having consumed four drinks of any kind?” Response options included definitely feel that it is acceptable, I am not certain how I feel about it, and definitely feel that it is not acceptable. To

57 measure the threat of informal sanctions, participants were asked: “Without naming this person, is there anyone in your social network that you feel very close to? If yes, how do you think this person would react if they knew that you drove your car after consuming four drinks? If no, please skip to the next question.” Response options included they definitely would approve of me driving a car after four drinks, they probably would approve of me driving a car after four drinks, they probably would disapprove of me driving a car after four drinks, and they definitely would disapprove of me driving a car after four drinks.

Indirect experience with punishment. In accordance with the reconceptualized argument, each respondents indirect experience with punishment includes the knowledge of other’s criminal activity and the consequences of that omission. Participants were asked three separate questions. These questions asked if anyone they knew had been arrested for a DUI/DWI, who had been penalized through having their license suspended for the offense of drunk driving, and if they knew anyone that had served jail time for drunk driving. All three questions had the same response options of either “yes” or “no.”

Indirect experience with punishment avoidance. To find a single measurement of indirect experience with punishment avoidance, participants were asked: “Of all people convicted for a first offense of drunk driving, about how many would you guess actually receive the proper punishment as is required by law?” Response options included all receive proper legal punishment, almost three quarters receive proper legal punishment, about half receive proper legal punishment, about one quarter receives proper legal punishment, and almost none receive proper legal punishment. To the

58 extent that Stafford and Warr are correct, the belief that other individuals got away with their due punishment for drinking and driving is a strong example of the shortcomings within the criminal justice system. The effect of a defected legal system creates an easy pathway for one’s self to violate the law.

Other measures of indirect experience. In addition to others offending and the consequences of offending, there are more sources of indirect experiences. Two possible sources include: (1) friends’ approval/disapproval of drunk driving (a vicarious analog of one’s own moral beliefs), and (2) the estimate of one’s friends’ own drunk driving. This study predicts that engaging with friends who accept and endorse drunk driving behaviors have the ability to threaten and reduce the credibility of the law, ultimately sabotaging deterrence. To get a measure of friends’ attitudes concerning drinking and driving, participants were asked: “Do you think that you friends would approve or disapprove of if they knew you were driving home after four alcoholic beverages?” Response options included they definitely would disapprove, they probably would disapprove, they probably would approve, and they definitely would approve.

Next, this study measured the drinking and driving activity of others. Participants were asked: “About how many drivers do you think avoid all alcoholic beverages where they are present because they want to be responsible when driving?” Response options were I do not attend parties where alcoholic beverages are served, almost no drivers avoid alcoholic beverages, with middle-ranged options indicating almost all avoid all alcoholic beverages, almost three quarters, almost one half, and about one quarter.

Dependent Variable

Projections of drinking and driving. The dependent variable this study concerns itself with is projection of future drinking and driving. Projections, or intentions to deviate or commit criminal offenses, have been used successfully in previous deterrence literature (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). Research has shown that the correlation between intentions and actual behavior is quite high. To obtain a measure of projections to drink and drive, participants were asked: “If I am perfectly honest with myself, I will probably drive at least once in the next year while I am over the legal alcohol limit.” Response options included strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, I am not sure, somewhat agree, and strongly agree.

Sampling Procedures and Data Collection

This study analyzes data on drinking and driving behaviors and decision making based on direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance.

The population of interest was selected due to their collegiate status and declared major at

CSUS. Primary data was gathered by convenience sampling via classroom visits followed by the dissemination of flyers. Respondents were chosen at random due to their voluntary participation in the questionnaire. This sampling technique was chosen due to the relative easy accessibility of the students.

The principle researcher of this study attended a faculty meeting that hosted professors within the Division of Criminal Justice. During the meeting, the researcher introduced her study to the staff, then asked for their participation in drafting student respondents from their classes. Professors willing to lend their classroom time to aid the

60 researcher in collecting data were contacted via email. With the agreement from a professor, a date and time were scheduled for the researcher to introduce the study to the class and pass flyers out to the students. Three undergraduate criminal justice capstone classes, five undergraduate research method classes and one graduate level criminal justice class were visited and given a flyer with access to the online survey. There were

213 student participants in total.

Reason for selecting criminal justice majors. Students who were undeclared or declared a major in criminal justice were chosen as the population of interest due to nature of the survey and interest in this specific populations experiences. Of the nine classes that were given flyers, all classes were held in Alpine Hall, which was the designated building for the Division of Criminal Justice. Five of the classes were research methods classes with a varied population of majors, which were referred to as

“non-criminal justice majors.” The other four classes were more certain to have criminal justice majors. Three of the four classes were the capstone class that is required the last semester before graduation, while the final class was a criminal justice graduate class; all were referred to as “criminal justice majors.”

The inclusion of these classes were to gather a sample group with hopes of comparing and contrasting the criminal justice majors’ experiences to that of the non- criminal justice majors’ experiences. The main interest here, however, was the criminal justice students. Targeting individuals who indicate a specific interest in the criminal justice field provided an exceptionally useful sample for examining their experiences with the chosen criminal act of driving under the influence of alcohol (Bjerregaard &

Lord, 2004). Likewise, fellow non-criminal justice majors that were pursuing a variety of other occupations provided a practical comparison sample (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004).

This survey aimed to measure the significance of punishment avoidance through the experiences of both sample groups.

Reason for not targeting other populations. Although a sample group from any major would provide valuable data and results, the principle researcher was interested in a group that may have the greatest amount of bias. Due to the nature of the crime being used to measure punishment avoidance, the researcher was interested in using this sample group to evaluate their experiences and decision making given their interest in law enforcement.

Sample limitations. Often times university campuses do not have populations that adequately represent the general population. Smaller sample sizes of survey research, such as the one in this study, is commonly viewed as limited in its use, or transferability, in settings that differ from those in which the research was originally conducted (Pearson, Parkin, & Coomber, 2011). Considering this survey’s sample group of interest in a discipline and with their own biases, it is more difficult to generalize this data and determine whether the sample is representative of the population.

Prior to the dissemination of the flyers, a brief introduction of the research was given to the potential participants. While the survey was entirely voluntary, minor degrees of variance existed in how the research was framed. This was based upon request made by some professors to ensure that the survey process was an educational opportunity for their students. For instance, the research methods classes were told that

62 the research may provide a greater understanding for the process of gathering primary data. When presenting to criminal justice classes, the research was framed as an examination of the reconceptualized deterrence theory with them being the most convenient sample group. It is believed that these explanations provided motivation to the participants and an educational opportunity upon which the professor could build without misrepresenting the research.

After orienting each class with the implied consent form and purpose of the study, the flyers were handed out. All students who were present for the orientation accepted a copy of the flyer. Students wishing to participate were asked to either type the

URL into their mobile phones or laptops, or scan the QR code via their mobile phone camera or barcode scanner application. It was announced that should any questions arise during the survey that the student should raise his/her/their hand so that it could be answered by the principle researcher. Participants spent roughly five minutes responding to the online Qualtrics survey. If there were no questions regarding the study or survey, the principle researcher left the classroom.

Protection of Human Subjects

This study was approved by the CSUS Institutional Review Board (IRB). To preserve anonymity for both the researcher and the participants, flyers with questionnaire instructions were disseminated to students by participating professors and online surveys were administered. For the sake of the participants, the flyers and the launch of the questionnaire stated the purpose of the research. The implied consent included listed information about accessing their rights as a participant, an on-campus resource for any

63 distress, and contact information of the principle researcher and her thesis committee.

Further, the online questionnaire was entirely voluntary.

Data Analysis Plan

Data for this study were collected through an online Qualtrics survey. This was the preferred method to collect primary quantitative data given the diverse sample in multiple classrooms on various days of the week with several different time slots. This survey contained questions regarding their demographics, and their direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance in relation to driving under the influence of alcohol. As such, analyses of these questions focused on participant’s experiences, and how these experiences effect their morality, perception and projection of future drinking and driving.

This convenience sample group was selected due to their status as a collegiate student enrolled at California State University, Sacramento. Participants were notified by their professors at the beginning of each class. All students were given an introduction by the principle researcher and received a flyer with access links to the survey. Those who opted to participate in the survey understood that by accessing the online survey via

URL or QR code, they were consenting to their participation in this study. They were reminded that their identity would remain anonymous and that their participation was purely for academic research.

Many of the research questions and hypotheses centered around the specific demographic of the participant’s major, which was either an undeclared/declared criminal justice major, or non-criminal justice major. As such, this dichotomy allowed for two

64 main tests to be run: correlational analyses and analysis of variances (ANOVA’s).

Correlational analyses were used to see if there was a relationship between two non- categorical (continuous) variables (Field, 2013). There were multiple ANOVA’s run that involved comparing levels of continuous variables within categorical items (mostly those comparing criminal justice with non-criminal justice majors). This type of test is run to look at the responses in each category, and to check to see if one category has significantly higher or lower responses than another category (Field, 2013).

Four of the research questions centered around the participant’s status of being a collegiate student. These questions were aimed to measure how driving under the influence (DUI/DWI) laws effect their decision making when considering punishment and punishment avoidance, and their perception of severity of punishment. Informal sanctions within social networks were included in some research questions to assess how closer proximity indirect experiences effected the participants compared to general

DUI/DWI laws. One research question was broken down into three sub-categories: morality, projection of drunk driving, and perception of severity of punishment. These parts of the question were further analyzed by gender.

Chapter 4

Analysis of Data and Findings

The data for this study were gathered via an online Qualtrics survey. The target population was criminal justice majors. However, data were gathered from both criminal justice and non-criminal justice students. This dichotomous sample group provided robust results for extensive analyses.

Descriptive Statistics

A total of 213 students participated in the online survey. A comprehensive overview of the participants identifying as either a criminal justice major or a non- criminal justice major are shown in Table I.

Table I: Demographics by participant major

The total sample group was comprised of 132 criminal justice majors, 72 non- criminal justice majors, eight graduate students and one student that did not identify their major. This study further broke down the above mentioned majors by male and female gender, which is shown in Figure 4.

Gender

160 139 140 120 100 80 74 60 40 20 0 Male Female

Figure 4. Demographics by gender. A bar chart to illustrate survey participation by gender.

Due to the nature of the sampling procedures, the total number of participants were slightly skewed when analyzing the responses by gender. There was a robust response rate from female participants of both the criminal justice and non-criminal justice major.

As such, correlational analyses were run for this gender group and comparison charts were constructed for certain research questions in this study. Although there was a significant response rate for the total male participants, criminal justice students were n=64 while non-criminal justice students were n=6; these two totals combined actively omits four participants, which were comprised of three graduate students the one student that did not identify their major. As a result, correlational analyses could not be run for this gender group, as the response rate was too skewed to have accurate outcomes.

Although this was a convenience sample from a university, the age breakdown of the total sample group may be misleading (19 to 63) if one notes the median age of the

67 group. As shown in Figure 5, a large bulk (83%) of the participants were between the ages of 19 and 24, which this study and extant literature recognize as the age group of young adults (Colby et al., 2012; Evans et al., 1991).

Age

70 59 60

50 46

40 36

Frequency 18 20 15 14

10 5 5 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 33 34 40 44 51 63 Age

Figure 5. Demographics by age. A column chart to illustrate the age range of survey participants.

Nearly two thirds of the participants (142 out of 213) were in their third and fourth year of post-secondary education, as shown in Figure 6.

Academic Year

Graduate Student 8

6th Year Undergraduate 14

5th Year Undergraduate 35

4th Year Undergraduate 71

3rd Year Undergraduate 71

2nd Year Undergraduate 8

1st Year Undergraduate 6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 6. Demographics by academic year. A bar chart to illustrate the variance in survey participants level of academia.

Inferential Statistics

As identified in previous chapters, this study intends to examine the necessity for the inclusion of punishment avoidance into the reconceptualized deterrence theory. This concept, as well as the other concepts within the theory, were measured through questions regarding participant’s experience with direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance with drunk driving. This research further explores the participant’s morality, perception of severity of punishment and projections of future drinking and driving. Results were looked at as a total sample group, as well as broken down and analyzed by major and gender. As mentioned in Chapter 3, correlational analyses and ANOVA’s were run on the data for the nine research questions and five hypotheses.

Results

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run in order to determine if there was a difference in how likely participants predicted they were to drive drunk in the future between criminal justice students (n = 132) and non-criminal justice students

(n = 72). The results indicated no significant difference in the likelihood of future drunk driving between criminal justice and non-criminal justice students, F(1,202) = 1.41, p = .285. This confirmed the first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2. The researcher wanted to determine whether criminal justice students were more impacted by direct and indirect experiences with punishment than participants in other majors.

Direct punishment. To analyze the impact of direct punishment on criminal justice students, experience with punishment (having been stopped or arrested for drinking while driving) was compared with participants’ projected likelihood to drive drunk in the future. However, as previously stated, only three participants indicated that they had ever been stopped and/or arrested for a DUI or DWI, disqualifying the variables from being run in a correlation. Because of this, responses to the items were analyzed individually. All three participants within the sample that indicated they had been stopped and/or arrested for a DUI or DWI were criminal justice students. As discussed above, two participants indicated that they had been stopped and/or arrested once; one of these participants strongly agreed with the statement that they would drive while over the

BAC limit in the next year while the other indicated they strongly agreed with the

70 statement. One individual indicated that they had been stopped and/or arrested for a DUI or DWI twice; this individual said that they strongly disagreed with the statement.

Indirect punishment. To understand if criminal justice students would be more affected by an indirect experience with punishment, two sets of analyses were run. The first set of correlations included only the criminal justice students and compared the occurrence of three examples of punishment that could occur to someone the participant knew with how likely they were to drink and drive in the future. The results revealed that there was no significant correlation with the projected likelihood of driving drunk in the future and knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI or DWI, r = -.100, p = .254, n = 131, knowing someone who had their license suspended for drunk driving, r = -.079, p = .369, n = 132, or knowing someone who had served jail time for drunk driving, r = -.144, p = .100, n = 131. The second set of analyses ran the same correlation analyses on the portion of the sample that was any other undergraduate major. This showed that there was a significant relationship between projected likelihood of future drunk driving and knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI or DWI, r = -.266, p = .024, n = 72, as well as knowing someone who had served jail time for drunk driving, r = -.340, p = .003, n = 72.

These findings indicate that if non-criminal justice students knew someone who had been arrested or had served jail time for drunk driving, they were less likely to indicate that they themselves would drive drunk in the future. There was no significant relationship between knowing someone who had their license suspended for drunk driving and likelihood of driving drunk in the future, r = -.148, p = .216, n = 72. Based

71 on correlation analyses, it appears that non-criminal justice students were more affected by an indirect experience with punishment, contradicting the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3. To determine if criminal justice students were more impacted than others by their direct experiences with punishment avoidance, two sets of correlations were run.

Direct punishment avoidance. The first set looked only at criminal justice students and compared participants’ projected likelihood of driving drunk in the future with their estimates of the number of times they had driven after drinking without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint as well as the number of times they had driven after drinking without being arrested for a DUI or DWI. The correlation showed there was a significant relationship between projected future drunk driving and the number of times participants drank and drove without being stopped at a checkpoint, r = .366 p < .001, n = 132, as well as the number of times participants had driven drunk without being arrested, r = .246, p = .045, n = 67. These analyses indicate participants projected that they were significantly more likely to drive drunk in the future if they had driven drunk without negative consequences in the past.

The second set of analyses consisted of the same correlations conducted within the non-criminal justice student portion of the sample. The results showed there was a strong significant relationship between the number of times participants drove drunk without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, r = .507, p < .001, n = 72, but no significant relationship for the number of times driving drunk without being arrested for a

DUI or DWI. This finding indicates that as the number of times participants had driving

72 after drinking without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint increased, they were significantly more likely to indicate they would drive drunk in the future.

Based on the correlation coefficients, the number of times participants drove drunk without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint seems to have had a stronger relationship with projected future drunk driving within the non-criminal justice participants, however the relationship for number of times arrested for a DUI or DWI was stronger in the criminal justice students, partially supporting the first portion of this hypothesis.

Indirect punishment avoidance. Two more correlations were completed to determine if criminal justice students were more impacted by indirect experiences with punishment avoidance. The first set of correlations looked at the relationship between participants’ perception of how often first-offenders are properly punished for drunk driving and projections of future drunk driving within the criminal justice major participants. The results showed that there was no significant relationship, r = -.065, p = .464, n = 130.

The second analysis consisted of the same correlation within the non-criminal justice major participants. The results of the analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between perceptions of how often first-offenders are properly punished for drunk driving and projections of driving drunk themselves, r = .081, p = .501, n = 72.

Because there was no significance for either group, the hypothesis that criminal justice students would be more affected by indirect experiences with punishment

73 avoidance was not supported.

Research Questions

Research question 1. A correlation analysis was run to determine if a relationship existed between participants’ knowledge of the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit in California (Q7) and their projected likelihood to drink and drive in the future (Q24).

This analysis showed there was no significant relationship between knowing the legal

BAC limit and whether participants believed they would drink and drive, r = .032, p = .644, n = 213.

Research question 2. A correlation analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between the total participants’ perception of severity of punishment for driving under the influence (DUI/DWI) (Q15) and whether or not they believed they would drink and drive in the future (Q24), r = .020, p = .773, n = 213. The effect of a

DUI//DWI arrest was also analyzed by gender, as shown in Figure 7.

100 86 90 80 70 60 55 50 44 40 30 20 14 5 5 4 10 0 0 Not a Problem Slight Problem Moderate Problem Ruin my life

Male Female

Figure 7. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest. A grouped bar chart to illustrate how an arrest for

74 this crime would affect each participant’s ability to conduct their personal life by gender.

Research question 3. Researchers were interested in developing an understanding of whether a prior punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol

(Q8) would affect their projected likelihood of drinking and driving in the future (Q24).

However, only three individuals in the sample indicated that they had been stopped and/or arrested for a DUI/DWI. It was noted, however, that, of the two individuals who stated they had been stopped and/or arrested once, one indicated they strongly disagreed with the statement that they would drive at least once in the next year while over the legal

BAC limit; the other individual indicated they would strongly agree with the statement.

Finally, the only participant to indicate they had been stopped and/or arrested twice indicated they strongly disagreed with the statement.

Research question 3a. To determine if there was a relationship between driving under the influence of alcohol without punishment (Q12) and the projected likelihood of driving under the influence in the future (Q24), a correlation was run between the responses on these items. The analysis showed that there was a significant relationship, r = .289, p = .003, n = 103. This result indicates that those who had driven under the influence of alcohol more often were significantly more likely to indicate that they would drive under the influence in the future.

This finding was further analyzed by gender and male versus female likelihood for future drinking and driving, as shown in Figure 8.

2 without a Stop or an an orArrest a withoutStop

Number of Times Driven Drunk Driven Times of Number 1 1 2 3 4 5 Likelihood of Future Drunk Driving Linear (Male) Linear (Female) Linear (Total Sample)

Note. N = 103. Responses for number of times driven drunk without a stop/arrest: 1 = 0 times (not included); 2 = 1-2 times; 3 = 3-4 times; 4 = 5-6 times; 5 = 7-8 times; 6 = 9 or more times. Responses for likelihood of future drunk driving: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Unsure; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree.

Figure 8. Projected likelihood for drinking and driving. An over-imposed line graph and scatter plot to illustrate participants experience with punishment avoidance (y-axis) and their indication of future drinking and driving (x-axis) by gender.

Research question 4. Three correlation analyses were run to determine if knowing someone who has driven drunk and received punishment (Q18, Q19, Q20) have a relationship with participants’ projected likelihood of driving drunk themselves (Q24).

The analyses showed that there was a significant relationship between participants knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI or DWI, r = -.164, p = .017, n = 212, as well as knowing someone who had served jail time for drunk driving, r = -.202, p = .003, n = 212 and projected likelihood of future drunk driving. These results show that participants were significantly more likely to say they would not drive drunk if they

76 knew someone who had been arrested for a DUI/DWI, or if they knew someone who had served jail time for drunk driving. There was also a significant relationship found between knowing someone who had been penalized or had their license suspended and projected likelihood of driving drunk in the future, r = -.117, p= .018, n = 212.

Research question 4a. There was no significant relationship between participants’ perception of how often first offense drunk-drivers are given accurate punishments (Q21) and how likely participants projected they were to drive drunk in the future (Q24).

Research question 5. An ANOVA was completed to determine if there was a significant difference in participant’s perceptions of the morality of driving while over the BAC limit between criminal justice (n = 132) and non-criminal justice students

(n = 72). The analysis indicated there was no significant difference between the two groups, F(1,202) = .301, p =.584.

Research question 6. Another ANOVA was run to determine if there was a difference in how serious a DUI/DWI would affect their ability to conduct their personal life (Q15) between criminal justice (n = 132) and non-criminal justice students (n = 72).

The results indicated no significant difference between the two groups, F(1,202) = .325, p = .569.

Research question 7. To investigate if gender had any effects within the criminal justice and non-criminal justice students, the data was split between genders (male and female) and were evaluated to determine if there were similar results to the above findings on feelings of morality toward driving over the BAC limit, projected likelihood

77 to driving drunk in the future, and perceptions of how seriously a DUI or DWI arrest would impact life between the two groups.

Morality. There was no significant difference in perceptions of the morality of drunk driving between male criminal justice (n = 64) and non-criminal justice students

(n = 6), F(2,68) = .631, p = .430. There was also no significant difference in perceptions of the morality of drunk driving between female criminal justice (n = 68) and non- criminal justice students (n = 66), F(1,132) = .003, p = .959.

As mentioned previously in this chapter, the total number of participants was slightly skewed when analyzing the responses by gender. There was a robust response rate from female participants between the criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors. However, although there was a significant response rate for the total male participants, criminal justice students were (n = 64) while non-criminal justice students were (n = 6). As a result, correlational analyses could not be run for this gender group, as the response rate was heavily skewed creating the inability to have accurate outcomes.

Therefore, only the total male results will be demonstrated in Figure 9, while the total female results will be shown in Figure 10, as well as the female correlational analyses for criminal justice and non-criminal justice students shown in Figure 11.

Not a Problem Slight Problem 0% 7%

Moderate Problem 19%

Ruin my life 74%

Figure 9. Moral acceptability for males. A pie chart that illustrates total male participant’s moral acceptability of driving while over California’s BAC limit.

Definitely feel that it I am not certain how I is acceptable feel about it 1% 8%

Definitely feel that it is not acceptable 91%

Figure 10. Moral acceptability for females. A pie chart that illustrates total female participant’s moral acceptability of driving while over California’s BAC limit.

Slight Not a Not a Problem, Problem, 4% Problem 5% 6% Slight Problem 4%

Moderate Moderate Ruin my Problem, Ruin my Problem life, 86% 44% life 28% 62%

Figure 11. Moral acceptability for females by major. Pie charts to illustrate female participant’s moral acceptability of driving while over California’s BAC limit by major, criminal justice (left) versus non-criminal justice (right).

Projection of future drunk driving. There was no significant difference in projected likelihood of future drunk driving (Q24) between male criminal justice (n = 64) and non-criminal justice students (n = 6), F(1,68) = .177, p = .675. This is shown in

Figure 12. Additionally, there was no significant difference in likelihood of future drunk driving (Q24) between female criminal justice (n = 68) and non-criminal justice students

(n = 66), F(1,132) = .604, p = .438. This is also shown in Figure 13, which is followed by the correlational analyses for criminal justice and non-criminal justice female students shown in Figure 14.

Strongly Agree Somewhat agree 8% 4%

I am not sure 11%

Somewhat Disagree Strongly 11% Disagree 66%

Figure 12. Projection of drunk driving for males. A pie chart to illustrate the projection of future drunk driving by all male participants.

Somewhat agree Strongly Agree 6% 2%

I am not sure 10%

Somewhat Disagree 9% Strongly Disagree 73%

Figure 13. Projection of drunk driving for females. A pie chart to illustrate the projection of future drunk driving by all female participants.

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Agree agree Strongly agree 3% I am not 4% Agree 7% sure 0% I am not 12% sure 8% Somewhat Disagree Somewhat 8% Disagree 10% Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree 72% 76%

Figure 14. Projection of drunk driving for females by major. Pie charts to illustrate female participant’s indications to drink and drive in the future by major, criminal justice

(left) versus non-criminal justice (right).

Perception of the seriousness of a DUI/DWI arrest. The assumption of homogeneity within the sample was violated, so a Brown-Forsythe test was run to complete the analysis. The Brown-Forsythe test attempts to correct the skewness of the results (Roth, 1983). This is accomplished by calculating the median for each group, subtracting the median value from each dependent variable in the group, then an ANOVA test is run with the transformed variables. The new results are more robust (Roth, 1983).

The results indicated there was no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of a DUI/DWI arrest on how it would impact life (Q24) between male criminal justice (n = 64) and non-criminal justice students (n = 6), F(1,68) = .927,

82 p = .366. This is shown in Figure 15.

Not a Problem Slight Problem 0% 7%

Moderate Problem 19%

Ruin my life 74%

Figure 15. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for males. A pie chart to illustrate how an arrest for this crime would affect male participant’s ability to conduct their personal life.

There was also no significant difference in the perceived seriousness of a DUI or

DWI arrest on how it would impact life (Q24) between female criminal justice (n = 68) and non-criminal justice students (n = 66), F(1,132) = 1.15, p = .288. This is shown in

Figure 16, which is followed by the correlational analyses for criminal justice and non- criminal justice female students shown in Figure 17.

Not a Problem Slight Problem 3% 3%

Moderate Problem 32% Ruin my life 62%

Figure 16. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for females. A pie chart to illustrate how an arrest for this crime would affect female participant’s ability to conduct their personal life.

Not a Not a Slight Problem Problem Slight Problem 6% 1% Problem 2% 4%

Moderate Moderate Problem Ruin my Problem Ruin my 33% life 28% life 62% 64%

Figure 17. Effect of a DUI/DWI arrest for females by major. Pie charts to illustrate how an arrest would affect female participants by major, criminal justice (left) versus non- criminal justice (right).

Chapter 5

Discussion, Limitations and Recommendations

The preceding chapters have explored drunk driving and deterrence literature.

Specifically, the historical background of deterrence theory, that model’s role in the criminal justice system, the methodology of this study and the findings from the primary data that was gathered. This final chapter will provide a summary of the study conducted and its key findings, how those findings compare to previous studies, and how the results add to extant literature. This chapter will also identify limitations within the study and provide recommendations for future research.

Discussion

As mentioned in previous chapters, this study aimed to examine the necessity of the inclusion of punishment avoidance into the reconceptualized deterrence theory. As such, this study had significant findings that provided confirmation of its necessity when measuring deterrence theory.

One of the more consistent distinctions throughout literature is the influence of gender (Colby et al., 2012). Some studies suggest that female criminal justice students tend to express higher ethical standards than male criminal justice students, which is consistent with the findings in this study. The results for this study indicate that male criminal justice students (n=64) are more likely to drive drunk in the future, but are also more concerned than female criminal justice students (n=68) of how a DUI/DWI arrest would affect their personal life.

Research question 2 measured direct punishment avoidance, which is an expansion

85 of specific deterrence in the reconceptualized deterrence theory. This question asked,

“does committing the offense and having gone without punishment deter collegiate students from reoffending?” As Piquero and Paternoster (1998) suggested, those who successfully break the law are more likely to drink and drive again in the future, which is also consistent with previous literature. The results in this study supported extant literature and showed that those who had driven under the influence of alcohol more often (survey question 12) were significantly more likely to indicate that they would drive under the influence in the future (survey question 24). As such, a significant relationship was found when measuring the experiences of direct punishment avoidance on a population with a low level of criminal propensity. This was consistent with

Stafford and Warr’s (1993) prediction, that an individual’s personal experience with punishment avoidance will exert a significance on projections to drink and drive (Piquero

& Paternoster, 1998; Stafford & Warr, 1993).

While only three participants in this study indicated they had been stopped and arrested for the offense of a DUI/DWI, variables were disqualified from being run in a correlation. Two of the three participants indicated that the experience with direct punishment – specific deterrence in the reconceptualized deterrence theory – would deter them from reoffending. One of the those two, however, indicated that they had been stopped and arrested twice for this offense. As such, the punishment from the first arrest did not deter them from reoffending, but the punishment from the second arrest did. The second of the two, and the third participant were each arrested once for this offense, and both indicated that they were not likely to reoffend. Piquero and Paternoster (1998)

86 found that an arrest would not affect an individual’s projection to drink and drive, and similar to this study, few people in the sample had experience with being arrested for the offense. Literature suggests that if these data were generalizable, the effect of formal sanctions on an individual’s drinking and driving practices would not be achieved by existing levels of arrest (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998).

Research questions 3 and 4 measured indirect punishment, which is general deterrence within the reconceptualized deterrence theory. Research question 3 measured general deterrence as it is defined within the traditional theory, which asked, “does the knowledge of DUI/DWI laws deter collegiate students from committing the offense?”

The results showed there was no significant relationship between knowing California’s legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit (survey question 7) and the participant’s projection to drink and drive (survey question 24). As such, pure knowledge of the law and an understanding that punishment may be administered if caught committing the offense did not deter participants within this study.

Research question 4 maintained measurement of general deterrence, however, was intentionally concerned with vicarious experiences of individuals within the participant’s social network. One body of literature suggests that non-legal sanctions, such as shame from individuals in one’s social network may be are more effective in gaining compliance and achieving deterrence than legal threats of punishment (Paternoster,

2010). As such, this research question asked, “does knowing someone who has committed the offense and received punishment deter collegiate students from committing the offense?” The results in this study found a significant relationship for

87 knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI/DWI (survey question 18), for knowing someone who had served jail time for a drunk driving (survey question 20), and for knowing someone who had penalized through a suspended license (survey question

19). Thus, knowledge of the law and awareness of punishment did not deter participants, but knowledge of the punishment administered to the individuals within the participant’s social network did.

Research question 5 asked, “does knowing that some individuals avoid punishment entirely deter collegiate students from committing the offense?” The results corresponded to the results from research question 3; a significant relationship was not found between the participants’ perceptions of how often first-offense drunk-drivers are given accurate punishment (survey question 21) and participants projection to drink and drive (survey question 24). Again, general deterrence was not achieved in this study. General deterrence was only achieved when the participants’ had a vicarious experience through the punishment administered to individual’s within a participant’s social network. This is important to note as extant literature suggests that individuals may be tempted to draw greater conclusions about the certainty and severity of punishment based on cumulative experiences of individuals within their social network, rather than from their own relatively narrow direct experiences and general indirect experiences (Stafford & Warr,

1993).

Hypothesis 1 stated “there will be no difference between criminal justice and non- criminal justice students on their act of drinking and driving.” While some literature suggests that criminal justice students are held to a higher moral standard and should

88 carry themselves accordingly within their decision making (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004), this study’s results indicated that the morality of both groups – criminal justice and non- criminal justice students – were similar. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of projection to drink and drive between the two groups, which supported the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 stated “criminal justice majors will be more impacted than non- criminal justice majors by their direct and indirect experiences with punishment.”

Direct. While a previous study indicates that criminal justice students reported being less likely to engage in unethical behaviors (Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004), this study demonstrates that of all participants in the study (n=213), only three indicated being stopped and arrested for the offense. Yet, all three participants were criminal justice majors. While this study was unable to run a correlational analysis for this hypothesis, the three individual accounts of being stopped and arrested for a DUI/DWI contradict the previous studies indication that criminal justice students are less likely to engage in unethical behaviors. This is due to each of the three participants being a criminal justice major and also being directly affected by punishment.

Indirect. There was no significant correlation with the projection to drink and drive in the future and knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI/DWI, knowing someone who had served jail time for this offense, and knowing someone who had their license suspended for this offense. Similarly, for non-criminal justice majors, there was no significant relationship between knowing someone who had their license suspended. However, a significant relationship for non-criminal justice majors was

89 found between the projection to drink and drive in the future and knowing someone who had been arrested for a DUI/DWI, and knowing someone who had served jail time for this offense. Ultimately, this hypothesis was contradicted.

Hypotheses 3 stated “criminal justice majors will be more impacted than non- criminal justice majors by their direct and indirect experiences with punishment avoidance.”

Direct. A previous study suggests that there are differences between criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors when examining specific unethical behaviors on college campuses; however, those differences are very few and not so clean-cut

(Bjerregaard & Lord, 2004). This is also seen in the results of this study. For criminal justice students, a significant relationship was found between the projection to drink and drive and the number of times participants drove without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. Similarly, for non-criminal justice students, a strong significant relationship was found for this same relationship. However, a clear-cut difference was noted when looking at the relationship between a projection to drink and drive and the number of times participants drove drunk without being arrested. A significant relationship was found here for criminal justice students, while there was no significant relationship for non-criminal justice students. As such, only the first part of this hypothesis was supported. It must be noted that for all participants, despite their declared major, they are impacted more by punishment avoidance, as they indicated that they have had many more experiences with that than actual punishment.

Indirect. One study suggests that individuals who have knowledge of others that

90 commit a crime and avoid punishment are less likely to perceive the threat of legal sanctions for a generalized other to be high (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998). The results of this study are consistent with that assertion. For both criminal justice and non-criminal justice majors, there was no significant relationship found between the perception of how often first-time offenders were properly punished when caught for drinking and driving and the participants own projection to drink and drive. This hypothesis was not supported.

Limitations

As with any piece of research, this study has limitations that should be acknowledged while interpreting the information presented. These range from challenges of not knowing the college major of all participants in the study to the criminal propensity of the entire sample group. Each limitation will be briefly discussed about how they are expected to have impacted the study.

A demographic used in this study was gender. Although the survey offered eight various gender options, the literature review and study focused on the binary gender identities of male and female gender. While the principle researcher anticipated this being a limitation within the study, it ultimately was not. Despite the option of other identities, all participants chose either the male or female gender. Previous literature lacks the gender identity component that recognizes more than just the male and female identity. As such, that is a limitation that exists within previous studies.

This study utilized alcohol as its leading feature with drunk driving as its criminal offense. There are many decades’ worth of drunk driving literature, which is why this

91 study utilized the offense to examine the reconceptualized deterrence theory. With the research that has been completed and the data that has been retrieved in previous studies, drunk driving served as the fairest choice. Driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while intoxicated (DWI) were used synonymously throughout this study, just as it is used interchangeably within Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV, 2016). However, this may be considered a limitation, because DWI suggests inebriation, while DUI may be inclusive of both drugs and alcohol. This study omitted drugs as a feature for a few reasons. First and foremost, drug usage is prohibited by many potential employers of this studies sample group, whereas alcohol is not. Secondly, drugs were excluded, because research suggested that its usage for young adults was less than that of alcohol. Further, literature asserted that alcohol infiltrates and affects this sample group more than drugs do. Lastly, DUI/DWI’s are a more common criminal offense for an individual to have direct and indirect experiences with, which provided simplicity for the purpose of this study.

On CSUS campus, there are eight colleges that each encompass as few as three to as many as 14 majors. A large limitation exists within this study, as it focused on the

Division of Criminal Justice within the Health and Human Services college of the entire university, with the exception of two child development classes. This may have shifted the findings dramatically, as the sample group was incredibly small considering the large and diverse population of the university. This study had a targeted population of criminal justice students and was limited by restricting participants between the survey answer options of “undergraduate declared/undeclared Criminal Justice major,” “other

92 undergraduate major,” and “graduate student (any major).” By not allowing participants to identify another specific major relative to criminal justice, this study was unable to run statistical analyses based on potential college major differences.

Another drawback created by mentioned limitation was the variance of the sample group. The utilization of declared Criminal Justice majors narrowed this study significantly, not only because of the mutual major, but largely in part because of the assumed lower level criminal propensity. Criminal Justice majors and “professionals, be they police, probation, correctional officers, or others, carry important responsibilities and make life-impacting decisions for the people with whom they work” (Gray & Brown,

2009, p. 234). As such, the background of applicants for positions in justice related fields is thoroughly examined and highly scrutinized. Although the principle researcher does not want to diminish the importance of alcohol use and abuse by other collegiate students regardless of their major, collegiate students pursuing positions in the criminal justice realm make this an important area of inquiry in regards to deterrence-based studies, such as this one. This, however, creates a limitation when attempting to use this content for more generalizable studies.

The nature of the college sample serves as a limitation. Criminal propensity and deterrence relationships appear to be underdeveloped, as many findings on this pairing are derived from populations with low to moderate criminal propensity (Pogarsky, 2007), such as participants from college campuses, which this study utilized. A further limitation within this sample group was the targeted population of criminal justice majors. This limits this study’s scope of criminal offenders. The criminal propensity

93 among this population is presumably low due to the “powerful positions that these students will have if successful in their pursuit of jobs in the just system” (Gray &

Brown, 2009, p. 234). To better understand the functional form of the criminal propensity and deterrence relationship, evidence is needed from more criminally sophisticated individuals in varying populations (Pogarsky, 2007). This would include surveying additional sample groups, such as current and/or previously active offenders.

The final limitation for this study was the nature of the convenience sample. While this study produced a robust response rate from all participants (n=213), the separation between gender for the non-criminal justice majors (n=72) was lacking. Of the participants that declared themselves as non-criminal justice majors, there were 66 female participants and only six male participants. This created a significant limitation within the study, as gender was only able to be analyzed between female criminal justice (n=68) and non-criminal justice students (n=66). Any analyses run between male criminal justice (n=64) and non-criminal justice majors (n=6) would be incredibly misleading.

Recommendations

It is critical that if, as a nation, there is a desire to collectively progress to a place wherein there is a deeper concern for offender experiences and the potential consequences and effects, the reconceptualized deterrence theory must be carefully studied, understood and consciously practiced. For this study, young adults and drunk driving were addressed. Although this study did not make a statement about drunk driving, the study itself could aid in future literature. As the National Institutes of Health states it, “alcohol use continues to be regarded, by many people, as a normal part of

94 growing up. Yet underage drinking is dangerous, not only for the drinker but also for society,” (NIH, 2006a, p. 6). This is evident in the statistics regarding alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes, homicides, suicides and other injuries (NIH, 2006a). Thus, it is necessary to reexamine deterrence-based policies and to consider the concept of punishment avoidance when crafting future policies. This critical lens could potentially affect the nation in similar ways the MLDA-21 and 0.08% BAC laws did.

Future researchers should consider using a purposive sample rather than a convenience sample. Rather than recruiting voluntary participants, a purposive sample would include participants based on certain characteristics. As such, limitations such as the insufficient amount of male non-criminal justice majors would not exist. This would equip researchers with the ability to run adequate analyses when comparing and contrasting one group to another. Furthermore, future researchers may also consider collecting qualitative rather than a quantitative data, such as this study. If a qualitative study were conducted, researchers could delve into the understanding of how direct and indirect experiences with punishment avoidance ultimately strengthen and weaken deterrent effects of the law (Piquero & Paternoster, 1998).

Future research could also benefit from surveying additional sample groups. As discussed within the limitations, a lower criminal propensity exists within college sample groups. If future researchers conducted a study with non-collegiate status sample groups, or current and/or previously active offenders, they may find more criminal inclinations, as well as direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance.

Although there is a large amount of research regarding the variables that affect

95 individuals drinking behaviors, there is a growing body of literature about drug usage and how that alone affects individuals. As drugged driving laws are emerging, there may be a great need for studies incorporating drug use and abuse among young adults, including collegiate students. These studies may use variables that were used in this study, as well as other variables, as drug usage differs greatly from alcohol usage. These studies may become necessary as drugged driving and marijuana laws are becoming more recognized nationally, just as alcohol-impaired driving was decades ago.

Taken as a whole, studies of the reconceptualized deterrence theory are lacking in literature. The theory itself is greatly recognized, but studies that examine the relevance of the punishment avoidance concept within the theory are extremely minimal.

Additionally, it could add to the understanding that deterrence works better for some crimes rather than others. This study utilized the common offense of driving while under the influence of alcohol to examine the reconceptualized deterrence theory. To conduct a more comprehensive study, a more common offense in contrast to an exceptional offense, such as murder, should be used. Continued study of this topic and/or theory will contribute to a better understanding of individual experiences and the affects those experiences have on themselves and society.

Appendix A

Attachment A – Letter to Professors

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Arianna Perez, and I am a graduate student in the Criminal Justice Division at California State University, Sacramento. I am asking for your help in conducting my thesis research. My study tests the reconceptualized deterrence theory. I will be doing so by measuring individual collegiate students’ direct and indirect experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance with regards to drunk driving. Deterrence theory is an important criminal justice theory with implications for sentencing and punishment in our country.

The purpose of this study is to examine the newly-implemented concept of the reconceptualized deterrence theory, which is punishment avoidance. This component is aimed at diversifying and strengthening the extant components of the traditional theory, which are two distinctive processes: general and specific deterrence. This addition does in fact create a more complex breakdown of the theory. However, the scope of a researcher’s study will be more diverse, and one will find much more support for the deterrence theory when all three concepts are considered.

I will be gathering my own data using student participants from our campus as my sample group. I need an efficient way of disseminating my online Qualtrics survey to students to acquire the largest number of subjects possible for my study. Would it be possible for me to provide you with flyers to handout to your students? I do not anticipate this taking longer than a few minutes. This is a voluntary survey. Once the flyers are disseminated, they will have a link and a barcode scanner that directs each student participant to my Qualtrics questionnaire.

This is the largest hurdle of my graduate studies process. You and your students’ participation in my study would be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my committee chair, Dr. Jennie Singer, at [email protected], or me at [email protected].

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Sincerely, Arianna Perez

Appendix B

Attachment B – Implied Consent Flyer

My name is Arianna Perez. I am a graduate student at California State University, Sacramento. I am conducting this research under the supervision of our university’s Division of Criminal Justice.

You are being invited to participate in this research study on drunk driving and the reconceptualized deterrence theory. I am interested in analyzing direct and indirect experiences with both legal and non-legal sanctions, as well as the decision making process of collegiate students within different majors. Your participation would greatly help me.

Your participation in this study will require the completion of the following questionnaire. This should take only a few minutes of your class time. Your participation will be 100% anonymous, and you will not be contacted again in the future. An incentive will not be offered for your participation in this study. This survey involves minimal risk to you, as you will not be asked your name, any personal identifiers that give out your identity, nor will you be asked any incriminating questions. This questionnaire is purely for academic research only.

Your participation is completely voluntary. You are able to stop taking the survey at any time, but are unable to opt out once the questionnaire is complete. If you have further questions about this project or have a research-related problem, you are more than welcome to contact me, Arianna Perez at [email protected], or either of my advisors, Dr. Jennie Singer at [email protected], and Dr. Kim Schnurbush at [email protected].

If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, you may contact Leah Vargas with the California State University, Sacramento IRB (Institutional Review Board) at [email protected] with any questions. The IRB is an assemblage of individuals who review research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research participants.

Thank you! Arianna Perez

By accessing one of the following links and completing the survey, you are consenting to participate in this study.

§ You can access the survey through this anonymous survey link: https://csus.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aX0PSn3vEK0drwx § You can also access the survey through this QR Code by using a camera/barcode scanner:

Appendix C

Attachment C – Implied Consent Form for IRB

You are invited to participate in an IRB approved research study which will involve student’s personal experience and perceptions of drinking behaviors and decision making. My name is Arianna Perez, and I am a graduate student in the Criminal Justice Division at California State University, Sacramento. Your participation in this project is voluntary. Once you consent to participate in this study, you may decide to leave at any time.

The purpose of this research is to examine the newly implemented element of the reconceptualized deterrence theory, which is aimed at diversifying and strengthening the components of the traditional deterrence theory.

This could potentially expand extant literature on both drunk driving and deterrence literature. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete a survey that will be disseminated to undergraduate and graduate students at California State University, Sacramento via a Qualtrics online survey.

Your participation in this study will last approximately 5 minutes. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research project, please call the Office of Research Affairs, California State University, Sacramento, (916) 278-5674, or email [email protected]. By participating in this study, you indicate that you have read and understand the information provided above.

100

Appendix D

Attachment D – Online Qualtrics Questionnaire

The online survey contained the following questions:

1. The gender with which I best identify: (This is a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Female - Female to Male Transgender - Intersex - Male - Male to Female Transgender - Not sure - Other - Do not wish to answer

2. My current age is: ______(This is a multiple choice question with a dropdown list. Participants may only choose one answer.) - The ages range from 17 to 66+.

3. I am classified as a: (This is a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Undergraduate declared/undeclared Criminal Justice major - Other undergraduate major - Graduate student (any major)

4. My year level is: (This is a multiple choice question with a dropdown list. Participants may only choose one answer.) - First-year undergrad student - Second-year undergrad student - Third-year undergrad student - Fourth-year undergrad student - Fifth-year undergrad student - Sixth-year or more undergrad student - Graduate student - Other

5. Personally, at what blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level do you think you become impaired? (This will be a multiple choice question with a dropdown list. Participants may only choose one answer.) - The answers range from 0.01% to 0.15% or more.

101

6. What is your weight range? (This will be a multiple choice question with a dropdown list. Participants may only choose one answer.) - 99 and under - 100-119 - 120-139 - 140-159 - 160-179 - 180-199 - 200-219 - 220-239 - 240+

7. What is California’s BAC legal limit for persons 21+ when operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcoholic beverages? (This will be a multiple choice question with a dropdown list. Participants may only choose one answer.) - The answers range from 0.01% to 0.15%.

8. Punishment – drunk driving arrest. How many times you have been stopped and/or arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or driving while intoxicated (DUI/DWI)? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Never - Once - Twice - Three or more times

9. How many times you have been stopped and/or arrested for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID)? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Never - Once - Twice - Three or more times

102

10. Punishment – pulled over roadside checkpoint. How many times have you been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Never been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint - Once - Twice - Three times - Four times - Five or more times

11. How many times have you drank and drove without being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - 0 times - 1-2 times - 3-4 times - 5-6 times - 7-8 times - 9 or more times

12. How many times have you drank and drove and without being arrested for a DUI/DWI? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - 0 times - 1-2 times - 3-4 times - 5-6 times - 7-8 times - 9 or more times

13. Perceived certainty – self. Estimate the chance of you being stopped by the police if you consumed four alcoholic beverages, then operated a motor vehicle within two hours. (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Only 1 chance in 1,000 - Only 1 chance in 100 - Only 1 chance in 10 - Only 1 chance in 2 - No chance

103

14. Perceived certainty – other. Estimate the chance of someone in your social network being stopped by the police if they consumed four alcoholic beverages, then operated a motor vehicle within two hours. (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Only 1 chance in 1000 - Only 1 chance in 100 - Only 1 chance in 10 - Only 1 chance in 2 - No chance

15. Perceived severity – self. Please identify how great of an effect an arrest for a DUI/DWI would have on your ability to conduct your personal life? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Not a problem - Slight problem - Moderate problem - Ruin my life

16. Other measures of personal experience: moral beliefs. Do you feel that it is or is not morally acceptable for you to drive your car after having consumed four alcoholic beverages and still over the BAC limit? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Definitely feel that it is acceptable - I am not certain how I feel about it - Definitely feel that it is not acceptable

17. Other measures of personal experience: informal sanctions. Is there anyone in your social network that you feel very close to? How do you think they would react if they knew that you drove your car after consuming four alcoholic beverages within two hours? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - They definitely would approve of me driving a car after four drinks. - They probably would approve of me driving a car after four drinks. - They probably would disapprove of me driving a car after four drinks. - They definitely would disapprove of me driving a car after four drinks.

18. Indirect experience with punishment. Is there anyone you know that has been arrested for a DUI/DWI? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Yes - No

104

19. Indirect experience with punishment. Is there anyone in your social network that has been penalized by having their license suspended for the offense of drunk driving? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Yes - No

20. Indirect experience with punishment. Is there anyone in your social network that has served jail time for the offense of drunk driving? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Yes - No

21. Indirect punishment avoidance. Of all people convicted for a first offense of drunk driving, about how many would you guess actually receive the proper punishment as is required by law? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - All receive proper legal punishment - Almost 75% receive proper legal punishment - About 50% receive proper legal punishment - About 25% receives proper legal punishment - Almost none receive proper legal punishment

22. Other measures of indirect experience. Do you think that your friends would approve or disapprove of if they knew you were driving home after consuming four alcoholic beverages within a period of two hours? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - They definitely would disapprove - They probably would disapprove - They probably would approve - They definitely would approve

23. Other measures of indirect experience. About how many drivers do you think avoid all alcoholic beverages where they are present because they want to be responsible when driving? (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - I do not attend events where alcoholic beverages are served. - Almost no drivers avoid alcoholic beverages - Almost all drivers avoid alcoholic beverages - Almost 75% - Almost 50% - About 25%

105

24. Projections of drinking and driving. If I am perfectly honest with myself, I will probably drive at least once in the next year while I am over the legal alcohol limit. (This will be a vertical multiple choice, single answer question.) - Strongly disagree - Somewhat disagree - I am not sure - Somewhat agree - Strongly agree

106

References

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1997). Public support for correctional

treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal,

77(3), 237-258.

Applegate, B. K., & Sitren, A. H. (2007). Testing the Deterrent Effects of Personal and

Vicarious Experience with Punishment and Punishment Avoidance. Deviant

Behavior, 28(1), 29-55.

Beccaria, C. (1872). An essay on crimes and punishments. By Marquis Beccaria of Milan.

With a commentary by M. de Voltaire. (Abany, W.C. Little & Co., 1872).

Retrieved from http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/beccaria-an-essay-on-crimes-and-

punishments

Bjerregaard, B., & Lord, V. B. (2004). An examination of the ethical and value

orientation of criminal justice students. Police Quarterly, 7(2), 262-284.

Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The Effects of Focused Deterrence Strategies on

Crime: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323-358.

Carpenter, A. (2010). Beccaria, Cesare: Classical school. In F. Cullen and P. Wilcox

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 73-77): Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications Inc.

Colby, S., Colby, J., & Raymond, G. (2009). College versus the real world: student

perceptions and implications for understanding heavy drinking among college

students. Addictive Behaviors, 34(1), 17-27.

107

Colby, S., Swanton, D., & Colby, J. (2012). College students' evaluations of heavy

drinking: The influence of gender, age, and college status. Journal of College

Student Development, 53(6), 797-810.

Compton, R. P., & Berning, A. (2015). Drug and alcohol crash risk (Traffic Safety Facts

Research Note. DOT HS 812 117). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration.

Conser, J., & Russell, G. (2000). Law enforcement in the United States. Gaithersburg,

MD: Aspen.

Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2013). Criminological theory: Past to present

(5th ed.). United States of America: Oxford University Press.

Dang, J. N. (2008). (Statistical analysis of alcohol-related driving trends 1982-2005).

Washington, DC: Evaluation Division; National Center for Statistics and Analysis

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

DMV. (2016). DUI & DWI in california. Retrieved from http://www.dmv.org/ca-

california/automotive-law/dui.php

Dornier, L., Fauquier, K., Field, A., & Budden, M. (2010). Understanding and

confronting alcohol-induced risky behavior among college students.

Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 3(6), 45-54.

Durna, T. (2005). MADD, drunk driving and deterrence: The impact of state laws on

individual attitudes and behavior. Dissertations & Theses, 195.

Evans, W. N., Neville, D., & Graham, J. D. (1991). General deterrence of drunk driving:

Evaluation of recent american policies. Risk Analysis, 11(2), 279-289.

108

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: 4th edition. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Foster, D., Young, C., Bryan, J., Steers, M.-L., Yeung, N., & Prokhorov, A. (2014).

Interactions among drinking identity, gender and decisional balance in predicting

alcohol use and problems among college students. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,

143, 198-205.

Fradella, H. F. (2000). Mandatory minimum sentences: arizona's ineffective tool for the

social control of driving under the influence. Criminal Justice Policy Review,

11(2), 113-135.

Grant, B., Dawson, D., Stinson, F., Chou, S., Dufour, M., & Pickering, R. (2006). The

12-month prevalence and trends in DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence:

United States, 1991-1992 and 2001-2002. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 74(3),

223-234.

Gray, K. (2011). Problem behaviors of students pursuing policing careers. Policing,

34(3), 541-552.

Gray, K., & Brown, K. (2009). Drinking and drug use by college students: Comparing

criminal justice majors and non-majors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 234-

240.

HHS. (2010). Healthy people 2010 midcourse review: Focus area 26, substance abuse.

Washington: United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Hingson, R., & Heeren, T. (1999). Preventing impaired driving. Alcohol Research &

Health, 23(1), 31.

109

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-

related mortality and morbidity among U.S. college students ages 18–24: Changes

from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 259-279.

Hummer, J. F., LaBrie, J. W., Lac, A., Sessoms, A., & Cail, J. (2012). Estimates and

influences of reflective opposite-sex norms on alcohol use among a high-risk

sample of college students: exploring greek-affiliation and gender effects.

Addictive Behaviors, 37(5), 596-604.

Kelley, M. S., Fukushima, M., Spivak, A. L., & Payne, D. (2009). Deterrence theory and

the role of shame in projected offending of college students against a ban on

alcohol. Journal of Drug Education, 39(4), 419-437. doi:10.2190/DE.39.4.e

Kleck, G., Sever, B., Li, S., & Gertz, M. (2005). The missing link in general deterrence

research. Criminology, 43(3), 623-660. doi:10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00019.x

Lapham, S. C., & Todd, M. (2012). Do deterrence and social-control theories predict

driving after drinking 15 years after a DWI conviction? Accident, Analysis &

Prevention, 45, 142-151.

Lerner, B. H. (2011). Drunk driving, distracted driving, moralism, and public health. New

England Journal of Medicine, 365(10), 879-881.

Loewit-Phillips, Melody, P., & Goldbas, A. (2013). Mothers against drunk driving

(MADD): history and impact. International Journal of Childbirth Education,

28(4), 62-67.

Marshall, M., & Oleson, A. (1996). MADDer than hell. Qualitative Health Research,

6(1), 6-22.

110

McCarthy, P. S., & Zilliak, J. (1990). The effect of MADD on drinking-driving activities:

An empirical study. Applied Economics, 22(9), 1215-1227.

Mehta, C. M., Alfonso, J., Delaney, R., & Ayotte, B. J. (2014). Associations between

mixed-gender friendships, gender reference group Identity and substance use in

college students. Sex Roles, 70(3), 98-109.

Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity and extralegal

sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence.

Criminology, 39(4), 865-892.

Nagin, D. S., Solow, R. M., & Lum, C. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities and

police. Criminology, 53(1), 74-100. doi:doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12057

NHTSA. (2016a). The ABCs of BAC: a guide to understanding blood alcohol

concentration and alcohol impairment. National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

NHTSA. (2016b). Impaired driving. Washington, DC: United States Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Retrieved from

https://www.nhtsa.gov/Driving-Safety/Impaired-Driving.

NIH. (2006a). Alcohol alert: Underage drinking. National Institute on Alcohol Abude

and Alcoholism. Retrieved from https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-

health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/underage-drinking.

NIH. (2006b). Alcohol alert: Young adult drinking. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

and Alcoholism. Retrieved from

https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa68/aa68.htm.

111

Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 765-823.

Pearson, M., Parkin, S., & Coomber, R. (2011). Generalizing applied qualitative research

on harm reduction: the example of a public injecting typology. Contemporary

Drug Problems, 38(1), 61-91,63.

Pedrelli, P., Farabaugh, A. H., Zisook, S., Tucker, D., Rooney, K., Katz, J., . . . Fava, M.

(2011). Gender, depressive symptoms and patterns of alcohol use among college

students. Psychopathology, 44(1), 27-33.

Piquero, A., & Paternoster, R. (1998). An application of Stafford and Warr's

reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 3-39. doi:10.1177/0022427898035001001

Piquero, A., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of

deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivities, and offending

behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 153-186.

Pogarsky, G. (2007). Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(1), 59-74.

Prather, S. (2011). Perceptual deterrence and drunk driving among college students: Self

reported perception of risk and driving after drinking. ProQuest, 94.

Roberg, R., Crank, J., & Kuykendall, J. (2000). Police and society. Los Angeles:

Roxbury.

112

Rookey, B. D. (2012). Drunk driving in the united states: An examination of informal and

formal factors to explain variation in DUI enforcement across U.S. counties.

Western Criminology Review, 13(1), 37-52.

Ross, L. (1984). Social control through deterrence: Drinking-and-driving laws. Annual

Review of Sociology, 10, 21-35.

Roth, A. (1983). Robust trend tests derived and simulated: analogs of the welch and

brown-forsythe tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78(384),

972-980.

Segrist, D. J., & Pettibone, J. C. (2009). Where's the bar? Perceptions of heavy and

problem drinking among college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug

Education, 53(1), 35-53.

Sitren, A. H., & Applegate, B. K. (2007). Testing the deterrent effects of personal and

vicarious experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Deviant

Behavior, 28(1), 29-55.

Sitren, A. H., & Applegate, B. K. (2012). Testing deterrence theory with offenders: The

empirical validity of stafford and warr’s model. Deviant Behavior, 33, 492-506.

Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific

deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123-135.

Sweet, W., & Groarke, P. (2010). Bentham, Jeremy Classical School. In F. Cullen and P.

Wilcox (Eds.). Encyclopedia of criminology (pp. 88-94): Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications Inc.

113

Tabbach, A. (2010). The social desirability of punishment avoidance. Journal of Law

Economics & Organization, 26(2), 265.

Talpins, S. K. (2014). An argument for prioritizing drivers above the current illegal limit

in the United States. Addiction, 109(6), 875-877.

Tibbetts, S. (1998). Differences between criminal justice majors and noncriminal justice

majors in determinants of test cheating intentions. Journal of Criminal Justice

Education, 9, 81-94.

Toomey, T., Rosenfeld, C., & Wagenaar, A. (1996). The minimum legal drinking age:

History, effectiveness, and ongoing debate. Alcohol Health & Research World,

20(4), 213-218.

Turrisi, R., Mallett, K., Mastroleo, N., & Larimer, M. (2006). Heavy drinking in college

students: Who is at risk and what is being done about it? The Journal of general

psychology, 133(4), 401-420.

Ward, R. M., Galante, M., Trivedi, R., & Kahrs, J. (2015). An examination of

drunkorexia, greek affiliation, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Alcohol and

Drug Education, 59(3), 48-66.

Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. F. (2010). Will increasing alcohol availability by lowering

the minimum legal drinking age decrease drinking and related consequences

among youths? American Journal of Public Health, 100(6), 986-992.

Wilsnack, R. W., Vogeltanz, N. D., Wilsnack, S. C., & Harris, T. R. (2000). Gender

differences in alcohol consumption and adverse drinking consequences: Cross-

cultural patterns. Addiction, 95(2), 251-265.

114

Windle, M. (2003). Alcohol use among adolescents and aoung adults. Alcohol Research

and Health, 27(1), 79-85.

Wolfson, M. (1995). The legislative impact of social movement organizations: The anti-

drunken-driving movement and the 21-year-old drinking age. Social Science

Quarterly, 76(2), 311-327.

Wrye, B., & Pruitt, C. (2017). Perceptions of binge drinking as problematic among

college students. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 61(1), 71-90.

Ying, Y.-H., Wu, C.-C., & Chang, K. (2013). The effectiveness of drinking and driving

policies for different alcohol-related fatalities: A quantile regression analysis.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(10),

4628-4644.

Zhong, H., & Schwartz, J. (2010). Exploring gender-specific trends in underage drinking

across adolescent age groups and measures of drinking: is girls' drinking catching

up with boys'? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(8), 911-926.

Zimmerman, R., & DeJong, W. (2003). (Safe lanes on campus: A guide for preventing

impaired driving and underage drinking). Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of

Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Higher Education Center for

Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention.