酒後駕駛為近年來嚴重的道路交通事故之一，該事故的發生已造成嚴重的社會問題，為改善酒後駕駛問題，政府及相關單位皆積極致力於執法及教育宣導。然而單一性的改善方式並無法真正解決酒駕問題，須藉由完整了解駕駛酒駕的因素，及不同種類駕駛人選擇酒後駕駛行為的模式，做為日後改善酒後駕駛問題的依據。
為了解酒後駕駛者的行為，本研究設計酒後駕駛決策流程，使用飲酒情境並採用一對一問卷方式，針對具酒駕經驗者及未曾酒駕者進行調查，後以多變量及路徑分析驗證曾酒駕者與不曾酒駕者於飲酒與駕駛決策流程之影響因素差異，並驗證飲酒與駕駛決策是否具有關聯，及其各項影響決策因素為何。最終找出影響個體酒後駕駛之因素。
研究結果證實酒後駕駛決策流程中，飲酒決策與酒後駕駛決策具有關連。不曾酒後駕駛者與曾經酒駕者於酒駕選擇及影響因素中具有明顯差異，且「酒後駕駛風險後果」對於曾經酒駕者影響力低。不曾酒駕者影響因素為家人與朋友看法、事故傷亡後果。曾酒駕者可分為控制與增加酒量兩類，喜歡飲酒活動，並具有飲酒及酒駕習慣，參與飲酒活動時，顯示多數於喝酒時便決定今日會酒後駕駛，其餘並因為駕駛自信而產生酒後駕駛行為。影響酒駕者的因素為駕駛本身的自制能力、對私人運具的占有性、事故傷亡後果。

Driving under the influence of alcohol is one of the serious road accidents in recent years. It causes seriously social problems. Fortunately, the government has been actively engaging in law enforcement and education advocacy to reduce the problems. However, single unity improvement does not solve DIU problems completely. We have to improve the situation basing on understanding the factors of DIU and comprehending the behaviors of the different types of people who drive after drink.

In order to understand the consequence of driving under the influence of alcohol, this study designs the process of making decision of driving after drinking. Questionnaire use drinking situations, one-on-one questionnaires, investigation of people who had drunk driving experience and don’t have. The study use multivariate and path analysis validation to the people who had drunk driving and who had not drunk driving experiences in drinking and driving decision-making process of influencing factors. Verifying that if drinking and driving decisions have any association and what the factors are for the decision. Eventually, identifying the factors of impact which influent people to drive after having drink.

The study found that DIU decisions are connected. Never drunk driving and had drunk driving is a significant difference. The choices and factors are very different from people who have never had drunk driving to the people who had DIU before. The drivers who don’t drive under the influence for the thought of family and friends and the consequence of incidence. On the other hand, we can divide the people who drive after drink into two types. The first type is people who can control and the second type is people who usually increase the measure of alcohol. Both love to drink and get used to drive under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, most of the times they choose to drive after drink and sometimes they feel confident about this behavior. Conclusion. The factors of affecting drunk driving by self-discipline, the possession of vehicles and the consequences of accidents.

第一章 緒論	1
1.1研究背景與動機	1
1.2研究目的	4
1.3研究流程	5
第二章 文獻回顧	6
2.1酒精對人體影響	6
2.1.1酒精對駕駛行為影響	6
2.2酒後駕車之研究	7
2.2.1影響酒後駕駛決策因素	7
2.2.2酒後駕車風險	9
2.2.3酒後駕駛行為模型	12
2.3飲酒因素	15
2.4小結	19
第三章 酒後駕駛決策流程建構	21
3.1決策流程建構	24
3.3.1決策程序定義與建構	24
3.1.2決策因素蒐集與定義	27
3.1.3研究假設	30
3.1.4情境背景設定	32
3.2問卷設計	33
3.3研究對象與抽樣	36
3.3.1 調查範圍	36
3.3.2 問卷測試與修改	36
第四章 研究結果分析	37
4.1 基本統計分析	37
4.2信度分析(Analysis of Reliability)	44
4.3 效度分析(Analysis of Validity)	44
4.4飲酒與酒駕探討	48
4.5社經背景影響因素	52
4.5.1喝酒傾向各影響因素分析	53
4.5.2喝酒量傾向各項影響因素分析	56
4.5.3酒駕傾向各項影響因素分析	58
4.6酒駕與不曾酒駕者差異分析	60
4.7飲酒與駕駛決策流程驗證與因素分析	62
4.7.1徑路分析模式建構	62
4.7.2飲酒與駕駛決策流程模式分析	63
4.7.3飲酒與駕駛決策流程假設檢定	72
4.7.4問卷訪問結果匯整	75
結論與建議	76
Reference	78
一、中文文獻	78
二、英文文獻	79
附錄	81
飲酒及駕駛行為調查問卷	81

1.鐘紀瑋(民93年)。駕駛人風險行為與人格特質對汽車車體險損失影響之研究。銘傳大學經濟學系碩士論文，台北。
2.葉寶文等人(民95年)酒後駕車行為決策之研究。運輸計畫季刊，35(3)，337-364。
3.葉寶文(民96年)。酒後駕車行為之取締的願付風險價值研究。運輸計畫季刊，(36)4，509-533。
4.陳志明(民97年)。酒後駕車者之問題行為症候群研究-以台北市為例。台北大學犯罪學研究所碩士論文，台北。
5.朱禮伶(民98年)。應用駕駛模擬器探討酒後駕駛行為反應之研究。成功大學交通管理科學系碩士班，台南。
6.徐耀賜等人(民99年)。駕駛者對道路風險感受度之研究。中華民國運輸學會。
7.郭文俊(民90年)。酒後駕車風險知覺之資訊整合實驗。中山大學公共事務管理學系碩士論文，高雄。
8.何曉飛(民100年)。成年觀護個案酒駕風險知覺、拒酒自我效能與酒後駕車行為之關聯性。交通大學教育學系碩士論文，新竹。
1.Adam E. Barry , “Evaluating impaired drivers confidence and intention to (Please)drink responsibly,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 137-142, Year 2011.
2.Barbaraa C. Leigh, “Peril, chance, adventure: concepts of risk,alcohol use and risky behavior in young adults,” Addiction, Vol.94, No.3, pp.371-383,Year1999.
3.Bilesha Perera, “ Motivations for Alcohol Use among Men Aged 16-30 Years in Sri Lanka,”  Alcohol and Public Health, Vol.6 , No.9 , pp.2408-2416, Year 2009.
4.Emmanuel Kuntsche, “Drinking to have fun and to get drunk: Motives as predictors of weekend drinking over and above usual drinking habits,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Vol.110 , No.3, pp.259-262, Year2010.
5.Gustin, J. L., Simons, J. S. “Perceptions of level of intoxication and risk related to drinking and driving,” Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 605-615, Year 2008.
6.James E. Lange, Ph.D., “Drivers within Natural Drinking Groups:An Exploration of Role Selection, Motivation, and Group Influence on Driver Sobriety,” The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Vol.32, No.2, pp.261-274, Year2006.
7.J. Freeman *, B. Watson, “Drink driving deterrents and self-reported offending behaviours among a sample of Queensland motorist” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 113-120, Year 2009.
8.Joel W. Grube & Robert B. Voas, “Predicting underage drinking and driving behaviors,” Addiction, Vol.91, No.12, pp.1843-1857,Year1996.
9.Kristen G. Anderson, “To drink or not to drink: Motives and expectancies for use and nonuse in adolescence,” Addictive Behaviors , Vol.36 , No.10 , pp.972-979, Year2011.
10.Marie-Louise Fry*,“Understanding young adult drink-driving behaviour: a value benefit perspective,” International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol.13, No.3, pp.227-235,Year2008.
11.Rob Turrisi, “An Examination of the Relationships Between Personality, Attitudes, and Cognitions Relevant to Alcohol-Impaired Driving Tendencies,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.27, No.15, pp.1367-1394,Year1997.
12.Ward Vanlaar “The influence of traffic count on drinking and driving behaviour,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, pp.1088-1022, Year 2008.
13.W. Miles Cox, “A Motivational Model of Alcohol Use: Determinants of Use and Change,” Handbook of Motivational Counseling, pp. 121-138, Year 2008.
14.Alvin C. Burns, Ronald F. Bush “Basic marketing research : using Microsoft Excel data analysis,” pp. 121-138, Year 2005.