Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do preferences of drinker-drivers differ?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Health Economics and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Why people engage in illegal activities is not well understood. Using data collected for this research from eight cities in four states, this study investigates alternative explanations as to why people drive while intoxicated (DWI). We find that preferences and subjective beliefs about arrest/incarceration of persons who drink and drive do differ systematically from others in terms of benefits and costs of drink and driving, and in their risk tolerance. While most findings imply that DWI is a deliberate choice, we do find that drinker drivers tend to be more impulsive and lack self-control in their drinking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One can use different terms to describe these frameworks. In a recent review of the economics of health behavior, Cawley and Ruhm (2012) use the terms “traditional” for the standard neoclassical framework commonly used in economics and “non-traditional” for frameworks employed in the behavioral economics literature. We use Cawley and Ruhm’s terms in this study. Other classification systems have been used. For example, Nochajski and Stasiewicz (2006) call our traditional approach “criminal justice models.” They also describe “addiction models,” which incorporate psychological concepts including addiction.

  2. See Shavell (2007), especially pp. 144–48, which describes this type of model which applies in both a civil and criminal law context.

  3. Another activity is driving. One study reports that higher gasoline prices reduce the frequency of motor vehicle crashes, especially less severe crashes while alcohol consumption has a greater effect on frequency of more severe crashes (Chi et al. 2010).

  4. Among the stylized facts is the real excise tax on alcoholic beverages has been falling in the U.S. and that the probability of being arrested for DWI conditional on driving while intoxicated is very low, estimated at 0.001–0.002 conditional on driving while intoxicated (Bertelli and Richardson 2008; Dowling et al. 2011).

  5. See (Sloan et al. 1995) for a discussion of the comparative statics of a similar model.

  6. Decisions about z and e occur almost simultaneously since the individual’s blood alcohol content diminishes soon after alcohol consumption ceases. So it is appropriate to treat these decisions as joint and simultaneous.

  7. Conceptual analysis of risk preferences in the context of deterrence has focused on the relationship of risk preferences to the relative effectiveness of certainty versus severity of punishment (see e.g., Becker 1968 and Friesen 2012).

  8. Per capita consumption of ethanol in gallons in 2007—NC (2.0), PA (2.2), WA (2.4), and WI (3.0) (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 2009). Arrest to population ratios varied from 0.25 % (WA) to 0.67 % (WI) in 2009 (our calculation from arrest data we obtained from each state). The four large cities—Seattle, Philadelphia, Raleigh, and Milwaukee—have populations 380,000–1.4 million. The smaller cities—Yakima, Hickory, Wilkes-Barre, and La Crosse—have populations 37,000–82,800. The racial makeup of each city varies, e.g., Philadelphia and Milwaukee with large African-American populations, 43 and 37 %, respectively, Yakima with a large Hispanic population, 34 %. Further, auto insurance varies greatly among the cities. In an article entitled “Why is Automobile Insurance in Philadelphia So Damn Expensive?” Smith and Wright (1992) found that automobile liability insurance premiums in Philadelphia were about twice as high as they were in Seattle. Seattle’s were about 50 % higher than those in Milwaukee. Raleigh/Durham did not make the list. The authors attributed high premiums in some cities, at least in part, to large numbers of uninsured motorists in some markets. Ratios of uninsured motorist to bodily injury claims varied from 0.38 in Philadelphia, 0.14 in Milwaukee, to 0.089 for Seattle. Wisconsin is a particularly interesting state for this study as it is one of only three states that did not have compulsory auto insurance laws (at the time of the survey). Another statutory difference among the four study states is that North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but not Washington, have a key statute in DWI control—allowing sobriety checkpoints.

  9. Spending a night in jail following arrest but prior to a conviction is common for DWI arrests.

  10. Our notion of altruism thus does not incorporate the motive of reciprocity. This cannot be expected in the context of driving. On this motive, see Fehr and Gächter (1998).

  11. We obtain the laws from various sources to judge whether or not respondents’ answers are correct. Washington: Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) §46.61.5055; North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §20–179; Pennsylvania: 75 Pa. C.S. §3804; Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §346.65.

  12. The SAD asked for educational attainment and household income in the past year in mutually-exclusive categories. To develop continuous variables for educational attainment, we translate descriptions of highest grade or year of school completed into years. For example, we assume that “less than a high school graduate” equals 11 years and “graduate education” equals 18 years. Income was asked in income categories. For income, we take the mid-point of each category. The open-ended category for income was $250,000+. We set income of persons in such households at $350,000.

  13. The SAD did not ask follow-up questions about social interactions, including peer effects. While potentially important, this line of questioning would have taken a lot of survey time, which budget and survey time constraints precluded.

References

  • Akerlof, G. (1991). Procrastination and obedience. American Economic Review, 81(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angeletos, G.-M., Laibson, D., Repetto, A., Tobacman, J., & Weinberg, S. (2001). The hyperbolic consumption model: calibration, simulation, and empirical evaluation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, N. P., Meade, E. B., & Glynn, T. R. (2014). Predictors of detection of alcohol use episodes using a transdermal alcohol sensor. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 22(1), 86–96.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S., & Shapiro, M. D. (1997). Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 537–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment—economics approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S., & Murphy, K. M. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy, 96(4), 675–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2004). Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1558–1590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelli, A. M., & Richardson, L. E. (2008). The behavioral impact of drinking and driving laws. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 545–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, S., Lohéac, Y., & Rinaudo, S. (2007). Rationality and drug use: An experimental approach. Journal of Health Economics, 26(3), 643–658.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burghart, D. R., Glimcher, P. W., & Lazzaro, S. C. (2013). An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46(3), 215–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawley, J., & Ruhm, C. J. (2012). The economics of risky health behaviors. In M. V. Pauly, T. G. McGuire, & P. P. Barros (Eds.), Handbook of health economics (Vol. 2, pp. 95–199). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Chang, K., Wu, C.-C., & Ying, Y.-H. (2012). Effectiveness of alcohol control policies on alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 45, 406–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B. (2002). Your money or your health: Time preference and trading money for health. Medical Decision Making, 22(5), 410–416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, G., Cosby, A. G., Quddus, M. A., Gilbert, P. A., & Levinson, D. (2010). Gasoline prices and traffic safety in Mississippi. Journal of Safety Research, 41(6), 493–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, P. A., Phillips-Howard, P. A., Morleo, M., Harkins, C., Briant, L., & Bellis, M. A. (2011). The big drink debate: Perceptions of the impact of price on alcohol consumption from a large scale cross-sectional convenience survey in North West England. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 664–675.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, D. M., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2010). Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of Health Economics, 29(1), 1–28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhalla, S., & Kopec, J. A. (2007). The CAGE questionnaire for alcohol misuse: A review of reliability and validity studies. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 30(1), 33–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dowling, A. M., MacDonald, R., & Carpenter, K. H. (2011). Frequency of alcohol-impaired driving in New York State. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(2), 120–127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (1998). How effective are trust and reciprocity-based incentives? Economics, values, and organization. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2004). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. In C. Cramer, G. Lowenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J., Maxwell, J. C., & Davey, J. (2011). Unraveling the complexity of driving while intoxicated: A study into the prevalence of psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidity. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, L. (2012). Certainty of punishment versus severity of punishment: An experimental investigation. Southern Economic Journal, 79(2), 399–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, V. (1982). Time preference and health: An exploratory study. In V. Fuchs (Ed.), Economic aspects of health (pp. 93–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2012). Timing and self-control. Econometrica, 80(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J., & Köszegi, B. (2001). Is addiction “Rational”? Theory and evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1261–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keane, M. P., & Wolpin, K. I. (1997). The career decisions of young men. Journal of Political Economy, 105(3), 473–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khwaja, A., Silverman, D., & Sloan, F. (2007). Time preference, time discounting, and smoking decisions. Journal of Health Economics, 26(5), 927–949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Khwaja, A., Sloan, F., & Wang, Y. (2009). Do smokers value their health and longevity less? Journal of Law and Economics, 52(1), 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, H. K., & Abraham, A. J. (2012). Perceptions of the State Policy Environment and Adoption of Medications in the treatment of substance use disorders. Psychiatric Services (Washington, DC), 63(1), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laibson, D. (1997). Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S., & Porter, J. (2001). How dangerous are drinking drivers? Journal of Political Economy, 109(6), 1198–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner, L. (1997). Individual perceptions of the Criminal Justice System. American Economics Review, 97(1), 444–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotion in economic theory and economic behavior. American Economic Review, 90(2), 426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Loewenstein, G., Weber, R., Flory, J., Manuck, S., & Muldoon, M. (2001). Dimensions of time discounting. Survey Research on Household Expectations and Preferences. Ann Arbor.

  • Madden, G., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning, W. G., Keeler, E. B., Newhouse, J. P., Sloss, E. M., & Wasserman, J. (1989). The taxes of sin: Do smokers and drinkers pay their way? JAMA, 261(11), 1604–1609.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K., Smith, V., & Chorvat, T. (2005). Lessons from neuroeconomics for the law. The law and economics of irrational behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2007). Fatality Analysis Reporting System, U.S. Department of Transportation 2005 [cited April 2 2007]. Available from http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalReport.cfm?stateid=0&year=2005&title=People&title2=All_Victims

  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (2009). Per Capita Ethanol Consumption for States, Census Regions, and The United States, 1970–2007. (Gallons of Ethanol, Based on Population Age 14 and Older).

  • Nelson, T. F., Xuan, Z., Babor, T. F., Brewer, R. D., Chaloupka, F. J., Gruenewald, P. J., et al. (2013). Efficacy and the strength of evidence of U.S. Alcohol Control Policies. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45(1), 19–28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nochajski, T. H., & Stasiewicz, P. R. (2006). Relapse to driving under the influence (DUI): A review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(2), 179–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Incentives for procrastinators. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 769–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Self awareness and self control. Time and decision: Economic and psychological perspectives on Intertemporal Choice. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreira, K. M., & Sloan, F. A. (2002). Excess alcohol consumption and health outcomes: A 6-year follow-up of men over age 50 from the health and retirement study. Addiction, 97(3), 301–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, K. P., Brewer, R. B., Siegel, P., Sleet, D. A., Mokdad, A. H., Shults, R. A., et al. (2005). Alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults, 1993–2002. American Journal Of Preventive Medicine, 28(4), 346–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin, H. (2007). In what sense are addicts irrational? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 90S, S92–S99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, J. J. (2006). Cognitive errors, individual differences, and paternalism. University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 207–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rachlinski, J. J. (2011). Psychological foundations of behavioral law and economics. University of Illinois Law Review, 2011(5), 1675–1696.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein, A. (2003). Economics and psychology? The case of hyperbolic discounting. International Economic Review, 44(4), 1207–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhm, C. J. (1996). Alcohol policies and highway vehicle fatalities. Journal of Health Economics, 15(4), 435–454.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S. (2007). Liability for accidents. In A. M. Polinsky & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of law and economics (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, D., Macinko, J., Bae, J. Y., Jimenez, G., & Paul, M. (2013). Variation in U.S. traffic safety policy environments and motor vehicle fatalities 1980–2010. Public Health, 127(12), 1117–1125.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., Eldred, L. M., Guo, T., & Xu, Y. Z. (2013). Are people overoptimistic about the effects of heavy drinking? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 47(1), 93–127.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., Eldred, L. M., & Xu, Y. Z. (2014). The behavioral economics of drunk driving. Journal of Health Economics, 35, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., & Githens, P. B. (1994). Drinking, driving, and the price of automobile insurance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 61(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., Reilly, B. A., & Schenzler, C. (1995). Effects of tort liability and insurance on heavy drinking and driving. Journal of Law and Economics, 38(1), 49–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., Stout, E., Whetten-Goldstein, K., & Liang, L. (2000). Drinkers, drivers, and bartenders: Balancing private choices and public accountability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, F. A., Viscusi, K. W., Chesson, H. W., Conover, C. J., & Whetten-Goldstein, K. (1998). Alternative approaches to valuing intangible health losses: The evidence for multiple sclerosis. Journal of Health Economics, 17(4), 475–497.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E., & Wright, R. (1992). Why is automobile insurance in Philadelphia so damn expensive? American Economic Review, 82(4), 756–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Transportation. (2005). Traffic Safety Facts 2005. Washington D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuchinich, R. E., & Simpson, C. A. (1999). Delayed-reward discounting in alcohol abuse. In F. J. Chaloupka, M. Grossman, W. K. Bickel, & H. Saffer (Eds.), The economic analysis of substance use and abuse: An integration of econometrics and behavioral economic research (pp. 103–130). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA, #R01AA017913).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Duke University, 213 Social Sciences Building, Box 90097, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

    Frank A. Sloan & Lindsey M. Eldred

Authors
  1. Frank A. Sloan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lindsey M. Eldred
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank A. Sloan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sloan, F.A., Eldred, L.M. Do preferences of drinker-drivers differ?. Int J Health Econ Manag. 15, 241–268 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-015-9169-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-015-9169-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation