Drinking-driving attitudes, knowledge and behavior : an analysis of the first two telephone surveys of the Fairfax Alcohol Safety Action Project.

Lynn, Cheryl · 1976 · ROSA P / Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report evaluates the effectiveness of the public information and education (PI&E) countermeasure within the Fairfax Alcohol Safety Action Project (ASAP) by analyzing data from two telephone surveys conducted in June and December 1975. The study was motivated by the persistent problem of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and the need to assess whether local and national campaigns were successfully disseminating information and changing public attitudes toward drunk driving. The methodology involved interviewing approximately 500 randomly selected residents from the Northern Virginia telephone book during each survey period. The sample was stratified by sex and partially by age to ensure representation of younger drivers. Researchers utilized a standardized questionnaire provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, supplemented with local questions. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests for individual items and the construction of composite scales to measure alcohol experience, awareness, attitudes, and behavior. The findings indicate that while the two survey groups were demographically similar, there was a slight, though not statistically significant, decline in overall alcohol awareness between June and December. Specifically, awareness of the Fairfax ASAP program decreased, with fewer respondents able to identify the project by name. There were also significant declines in positive attitudes toward handling drinking drivers and support for countermeasures such as increased enforcement and severe penalties. The study found a strong correlation between alcohol experience and awareness; individuals with higher drinking experience and those who drive were more aware of countermeasures than non-drivers or those with low experience. Additionally, media consumption patterns differed by awareness level: low-awareness individuals watched more daytime television and listened to radio during early morning and daytime hours, whereas high-awareness individuals consumed media during prime time. The significance of these results lies in the conclusion that the PI&E countermeasure had not been successful in disseminating information about the local ASAP or in improving support for bystander intervention in drunk driving. The authors suggest that public information efforts should be targeted more specifically at low-awareness segments of the population. Recommendations include scheduling television advertisements during daytime hours and radio advertisements during early morning and daytime periods to reach those currently missing from the campaign's reach. The report also notes that knowledge assessment was insufficient in these surveys and recommends including more comprehensive knowledge items in future studies.

Key finding

There was no evidence that the Fairfax public information and education countermeasure successfully disseminated information about the ASAP or improved support for countermeasure activities, and attitudes toward bystander intervention declined significantly.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 1000

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• public messaging
• seat belt use

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence