What shall we do with the drunken sailor?: Effects of alcohol on the performance of ship operators

The purpose of this study was to specify the effects of alcohol on the performance of ship operators as a contribution to the development of new strategies against the risks of alcohol in water traffic. The nautical performance of 21 captains before and after alcohol consumption was assessed on a ship piloting simulator. The simulated scenarios represented passages of a container vessel through the German Bight. Performance was examined by nautical instructors according to standardised protocols. Mean (S.D.) blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.100 (0.024) g/dl before and 0.100 (0.017) g/dl after the performance trial resulted in striking effects on the nautical performance. The categories most severely affected were foresight and analysis of situation (impairment in 18 of 21 cases), concentration (impairment in 16 of 21 cases), accurateness, risk disposition and navigation (impairment in 15 of 21 cases). Chart work, preparation and communication were impaired in 12, 11 and 10 of 21 cases, respectively. None of the participants were capable to operate the simulated ship with an adequate safety after ingestion of alcohol. From these findings, and in consideration of the well-established impairment of a multitude of mental and physical functions by alcohol, it can be concluded that even low BACs bear high risks in water traffic, a concentration above 0.1 g/dl will hinder a sufficiently safe performance of ship operators. This should be considered in alcohol education and legislation.     

The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials

The effectiveness of a persuasion technique referred to asstealing thunder was assessed in two simulated jury trials. Stealing thunder is defined as revealing negative information about oneself (or, in a legal setting, one's client) before it is revealed or elicited by another person. In Study 1, 257 college students read or heard one of three versions of a criminal assault trial in which a damaging piece of evidence about the defendant was absent (no thunder), brought up by the prosecutor (thunder), or brought up by the defense attorney and repeated by the prosecutor (stolen thunder). In Study 2, 148 college students heard a civil negligence trial in which damaging evidence about the key plaintiff's witness was absent (no thunder), brought up by the defendant's attorney (thunder), or brought up by the witness himself (stolen thunder). In both studies, stealing thunder significantly reduced the impact of the negative information. A path analysis of the processes underlying the effect suggested that verdicts were affected because of enhanced credibility.Often a difficult decision in opening statements is whether, and if so how, to volunteer weaknesses. This involves determining your weaknesses and predicting whether your opponent intends to use them at trial. There is obviously no point in volunteering a weakness that would never be raised at trial. Where, however, that weakness is apparent and known to the opponent, you should volunteer it. If you don't, your opponent will, with twice the impact. (Mauet, 1992, pp. 47–48)We would like to thank Michelle Cox, Gim Koay, Dana Koay, and Ralph Mueller for their helpful input. Thanks also to Irv Horowitz and Steve Karau for their comments on earlier drafts.