Several prominent theories have emerged to explain the phenomenon of drinking and driving(DD), yet little is known about whether these theories engage in falsification or integrationapproaches. Further, no methodology has been suggested to address this problem. This twofoldgap prevents us from understanding what social conditions are likely to trigger or avoid DD, andwhat the limits of each theory are. In order to assess whether analyses of DD rely on falsificationor integration, I operationalize the notion of ‘explanatory power’ and apply it to studies carried outin four different countries—Australia, Brazil, Canada, and United States, whereby threecriminological theories—Deterrence theory, Differential association, and Control theory—weretested. Both deterrence theory and control theory were found to be very effective in predicting areduction in alcohol-related crashes and a decreased level of BAC of the drivers. Differentialassociation theory was effective in identifying more precisely the causal mechanism behinddrivers who engaged in DD. In theoretical terms, it seems that a soft integrative approach can bemore effective for explaining DD, since each theory contributes to enlighten different elements ofthis behavior. However, the price of this research strategy could be losing parsimony. Lastly, themethod suggested here was shown to be useful in addressing the falsification/integration tensionwithin this field of research. However, more DD studies need to be analyzed in order to confirm,reject or change these preliminary results.
展开▼
