Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
Editorial
The parental factor in adolescent reckless driving: The road ahead
Adolescence is characterized by experimentation with risky behaviors, and risky driving is one of them. Such behavior represents a serious threat to youngsters’ health, and may even be fatal, with car crashes being the leading cause of injury and death in this age group (Beck et al., 2005; Winston and Senserrick, 2006), especially for males (Shope and Bingham, 2008). While this is a well-known fact, an integrative explanation of the complex mechanisms underlying the adolescent tendency is still lacking. Such a model is a prerequisite for the design of effective countermeasures. One major issue that has to be taken into account is the role played by parents in shaping teen driving behavior. It is important to bear in mind that for teens, driving is not just a quick and easy way to get from place to place. Often it is the danger and sensations associated with driving that make it so attractive and enjoyable at this age. Multiple factors come into play here, such as displaying mastery of a desired skill, emotional regulation of threats and moods, and coping with the social demands and challenges inherent in this period (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010c). Moreover, though we tend to perceive risky driving as unreservedly maladaptive, risk taking is also one way in which adolescents cope with a central developmental task: liberating themselves from their parents and asserting themselves as grown-ups and independent autonomous individuals (Baumrind, 1987; Shedler and Block, 1990). Although adolescents in general exhibit a higher risk endorsement than their parents (e.g., Simons-Morton et al., 2011), empirical evidence also show that the model of driving behavior parents provide is reflected in their offspring’s driving. In fact, parents’ involvement in traffic violations and car crashes has been shown to predict their children’s involvement in similar incidents (Ferguson et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2006). Moreover, studies using self-report questionnaires have found evidence for intergenerational transmission of driving styles (Bianchi and Summala, 2004; Miller and Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010; Taubman – Ben-Ari et al., 2005), as well as driving norms and values (Lahatte and Le Pape, 2008), and studies based on in-vehicle data recorders report parent–teen resemblance in driving behavior (Prato et al., 2009, 2010). Significant associations have been found not only between the two generations’ driving styles, but also between parents’ habitual driving modes and their teens’ attitudes toward accompanied driving (ATAD; Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010b), which, in turn, affect their endorsement of driving style (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010a). Thus, parental tendencies for anxious, risky, and angry driving styles were related to higher tension, avoidance, disapproval, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.011 0001-4575/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
anxiety in their children’s attitude toward the accompanied driving period, while a higher parental tendency for a careful driving style was related to lower negative ATADs among the adolescents. As the accompanied driving period may be critical in establishing safer driving habits that will continue to be practiced once adolescents are permitted to drive on their own, this insight into parents’ impact on teen drivers is highly significant. Additional validating evidence of the parental influence is provided by the studies of Brookland et al. (2014), Ehsani et al. (2014), Scott-Parker et al. (2014), and Schmidt et al. (2014) in the current issue. Brookland et al. (2014) found that adolescents’ crash involvement was related to parents’ crash involvement; Ehsani et al. (2014) established a correlation between the kinematic driving of parent–teen pairs, which was most pronounced in the beginning of teens’ driving experience; Scott-Parker et al. (2014) show that the risky driving behavior of young male drivers was associated with the perceived riskiness of their fathers’ driving, and the same tended to be true for female drivers and their mothers; and Schmidt et al. (2014) report that parental modeling of aggressive driving, substance use driving, distracted driving, and moving violations was predictive of youth risk in all domains of risky driving examined in their study. Taken together, these investigations provide further indications that an individual’s driving style may be shaped within the family of origin, and may be associated with the parents’ driving styles and behaviors. Despite the importance of this basic observation, our understanding of the mechanism that might explain it is still incomplete. On the one hand, children model themselves on their parents in all aspects of life. Since teens are exposed to their parents’ driving throughout their lives, it is reasonable to assume that they will model their own driving behavior on their parents as well, as research has indeed found. On the other hand, adolescence is the time when teens are trying to prove their individuality and thus behave in a differentiated mode from their parents, which is reflected in part in the fact that the associations between the generations in respect to driving behaviors are far from complete. Thus, it is still necessary to gain a deeper understanding of parent–teen dynamics and obtain a fuller picture of the parental factors contributing to teens’ driving behavior. One possible explanation for the parental influence lies in the socialization processes through which parents communicate their standards of conduct. These include parental monitoring of adolescent behavior, the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship, and parent–adolescent communication (Kotchick et al., 2001).
2
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
The first of these, parental monitoring and control, has been shown to be inversely associated with involvement in reckless driving. When parents know what their adolescent children are doing and who their friends are, impose limits on teenage passengers and night driving, supervise their teen’s driving, and restrict access to a car, the adolescents are more likely to take fewer risks, report less speeding and more seat belt use, and be involved in fewer traffic violations (Beck et al., 2001; Bingham and Shope, 2004; Graber et al., 2006; Hartos et al., 2000; Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – BenAmi, 2013). The study by Brookland et al. (2014) in the current issue provides further evidence of the validity of this avenue of research by indicating that the children of parents who implement fewer driving rules exhibit a lower compliance with GDL conditions. The second factor, the way adolescents perceive their relationship with their parents, is another important predictor of teens’ risk-taking behavior. Research has shown that the perception of support from parents is related to lower risk taking by children (Parker and Benson, 2004), and that emotional responsiveness and psychological autonomy-granting by parents promote the development of a responsible, competent adolescent (Nijhof and Engles, 2007; Steinberg, 2001). Moreover, teens with authoritative parents reported half the crash risk in the preceding year than those with uninvolved parents (Ginsburg et al., 2009). When the Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein et al., 1983) was used to examine teens’ perceptions of problem solving, communication, affective reaction, affective involvement, and general functioning in the family, these dimensions were found to be significantly and negatively related to their willingness to take risks while driving (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013; study 3). Furthermore, the family’s coherence and adaptability (Olson, 1986) have both been negatively related to endorsement of the reckless and angry driving styles, and positively associated with a preference for careful driving (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013; study 4). These findings suggest that positive family processes do more than simply discourage dangerous driving behaviors among adolescents; they may also help develop positive assets or strengths in their youngsters that work to prevent such behaviors (Chen et al., 2008). The studies of Laird (2014) and of Mirman et al. (2014) in the current issue provide insight into how the parent–teen relationship can positively impact adolescent driving behavior. Laird (2014) reports that parents who have an established style of providing structure and autonomy support to their children are more likely to integrate involvement in the driving process and the imposition of driving limits into their routine parenting style. Mirman et al. (2014) show the importance of support provided by parents and teens to each other in the process of driving practice, so that parents in mutually supportive dyads reported stronger intentions to be engaged in their teens’ practice driving during the permit phase than those in dyads where both members reported receiving a low level of support. Research has also found the third factor, parent–adolescent communication, to be related to adolescent driving, with poor parent–child communication associated with risky driving behavior (Turner et al., 1993; Wills et al., 1996), and higher frequency of parent–teen communication about safe driving (as reported by teens) associated with teens’ positive attitudes toward safe driving (Yang et al., 2013). While these studies indicate the significance of family communication, it is important to note that Goodwin et al. (2006) found that although there was general agreement between parents and teens as to whether certain things were said or done by the parents concerning the youngsters’ driving, the interpretations of these acts by the two generations barely exceeded the level of agreement that would occur by chance. Another study found only modest agreement between parents and their teens in respect to parentally imposed restrictions on mobile phone
use while driving (Foss, 2007). Foss alludes to a basic communication gap between parents and their teenage offspring, so that the message parents believe they are conveying by their words or actions and the message perceived by the adolescents may not be one and the same. Such communication problems are of considerable concern, as Beck et al. (2005) found that greater agreement regarding restricted driving conditions was significantly associated with decreased driving risk among newly licensed young drivers. New evidence reported by Goodwin et al. (2014) in the current issue indicates that when parents are accompanying their offspring in the car, the most common type of comment they make is instruction about vehicle handling or operation, followed by pointing out something about the driving environment, negative remarks about the teen’s driving, and helping the driver navigate. Other potentially helpful types of instruction, including explanations or insights relating to higher-order skills (e.g., hazard anticipation and detection), were less frequent. Such information, obtained from direct observation, enhances our awareness of the gap between professionals’ views of effective parental guidance and parents’ behavior in practice. The concept of Family Climate for Road Safety (FCRS) may help us to take a step forward in understanding the impact of the parent–teen relationship on adolescent driving by providing an integrative lens through which to view the complex issues involved. FCRS refers to the values, perceptions, priorities, and practices of parents and the family in regard to safe driving, as perceived by young drivers (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012, 2013). It consists of seven dimensions: (1) Modeling, i.e., the model that parents provide to their children by their own modes of driving and their degree of obedience to traffic regulations; (2) Feedback, relating to parents’ positive and encouraging comments to their offspring in regard to driving safely, and their ability to praise their children for safe and considerate driving; (3) Communication, a reference to open and direct communication between parents and adolescents in respect to driving behavior and risk taking, such as parents’ guidance on how to anticipate potential hazards on the road and inclusion of the young driver in framing the family “contract” regarding their driving; (4) Monitoring, or parental observation and supervision of their youngsters’ driving, including making sure they do not drive recklessly and having them inform the parents of where they are taking the car, who is going with them, and when they intend to be home; (5) Commitment to safety, a reflection of parents’ authentic commitment to road safety, obeying traffic laws, and considerate driving, including the time they are willing to invest in safety education; (6) Messages, a measure of parents’ clear verbal safety messages to young drivers that are understood by their children; and (7) Limits, i.e., the extent to which parents set systematic and clear-cut boundaries on adolescents’ driving behavior, discipline them for traffic violations, and make known the restrictions that will be imposed if they do not follow these rules. Studies have found that young drivers who perceive their parents to be good role models, to provide encouraging and empowering feedback for safe driving, to enable open communication, to convey clear messages regarding safe driving, to monitor their driving, and to set well-defined limits on breaking traffic laws, report taking risks less frequently, being more personally committed to safety, and driving more carefully and in a less aggressive and reckless manner. On the other hand, teens who perceive their parents to be uncommitted to safety report driving more recklessly and being less committed to safety themselves (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012, 2013). In addition to increasing our understanding of the nature of the parental influence on teen driving, these findings call attention to a crucial task for professionals: the need to identify different kinds of families and the particular dynamics within them during the course
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
of a teen’s transition to driving. Being able to describe families in a more precise manner may help to design more effective interventions that are tailored to the needs of different groups. To do that, we have to refrain from talking about parents or families in general, and concentrate efforts on identifying discrete processes in a number of different family types. Meanwhile, a variety of interventions aimed at encouraging parents’ involvement, supervision, and management have been suggested and evaluated. Most programs share three basic elements – education, discussion, and practice of a new skill (Burrus et al., 2012) – and have been shown to have a positive effect on adolescents’ health outcomes, thus indicating the importance of including parents in efforts to reduce teens’ engagement in risky driving from a different perspective (Williams et al., 2012). The Checkpoint Program, based on Protection Motivation theory (Rogers, 1983), was designed to encourage parents of teens who are beginning to drive independently to limit the adolescents’ driving under high-risk conditions. Following implementation in several settings, the program was found to increase parent–teen communication about driving and limit setting, and to reduce traffic violations (Simons-Morton et al., 2008; Zakrajsek et al., 2013). Another program that targets parents is Steering Teens Safe, based on Bandura’s (Bandura, 1986) social cognitive theory and family communication theory (Ramirez et al., 2012). Here, parents are instructed in how to be a role model by demonstrating driving skills and discussing driving issues with their teens. The program teaches parents strategies drawn from motivational interviewing techniques that are meant to improve parent–teen communication about safe driving, special driving situations, and rural roads. An evaluation study (Ramirez et al., 2012) found that the intervention was accepted by the participating parents and encouraged them to talk to their teens about driving and to demonstrate safe driving behavior. An Israeli program called Green Light for Life (GLL) is directed at parent–teen dyads. Aimed at improving the quantity and quality of adolescents’ driving during the accompanied driving period (ADP), it begins with a face-to-face meeting between a GLL representative and the young driver and his or her parents in the family home as soon as possible after the teen passes the on-road test and enters the ADP. The meeting deals with fundamental issues, including: explaining the goals and importance of the ADP; enabling the young driver and the parents to voice their expectations from the ADP in an attempt to bridge the gap between them; framing an agreement as to the rules and language to be used to manage the in-vehicle dynamics during accompanied trips; encouraging the family to take as many accompanied trips as possible, and to do so in a variety of driving conditions; and encouraging the parents to utilize their experience and hazard perception skills to help the young driver predict and perceive conditions that could develop into dangerous situations. In addition, the families are given a kit containing multimedia guidance materials. Two evaluation studies using self-report measures and objective crash data indicated that GLL participants were involved in fewer traffic crashes than those who did not participate in the program (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Lotan, 2011; Toledo et al., 2012). Technology can also assist parents in monitoring and shaping the driving behavior of their teens. One program that employed event-triggered video feedback and parental mentoring during the early period of independent driving led to a significant decrease in teens’ safety-relevant events, with the riskiest drivers benefiting the most (Carney et al., 2010; McGehee et al., 2007). Farah et al. (2014) in the current issue, continue the effort to make use of technology to help parents enhance the safety of their teen drivers. The authors utilized in-vehicle data recorders (IVDR), which record events of extreme g-forces in the vehicle, to document and
3
provide feedback on the driving behavior of members of the family. In one of the four study groups, the parents also received special training. It was found that young male drivers exposed to the intervention that included parental training recorded significantly lower events rates during the first months of independent driving than the control group, which received neither feedback nor parental education. These programs, and others like them, clearly demonstrate the important role parents play in improving the safety of young drivers. They also underline the essential qualities needed for parents to achieve this goal: the ability to provide feedback, to engage in effective communication, to exhibit mentoring skills, to guide and empower young drivers, and, of course, to serve consistently as positive models for safe driving. This special issue, dedicated to the role parents play in their children’s driving habits, brings together articles from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. They join previous research in demonstrating the positive impact that good family relations, benevolent parental involvement, open, supportive, and sensitive communication, and especially modeling can have on young drivers’ behavior on the roads. Perhaps even more importantly, they highlight the commonality of interests and understandings of researchers from around the world in what appears to be a virtually universal phenomenon. Interestingly, the evidence comes from investigations using different methodologies, and includes naturalistic studies and those based on the self-reports of adolescents and of parents and young drivers alike. As this issue indicates, progress has been made in understanding the role of parents in teen driving. However, a number of points are still controversial and certain questions remain to be answered. Some relate to methodology: Should research examine parent–teen pairs or are there insights to be gained from looking at only one member of this dyad? Can we rely on self-report studies or should we only relate to observational or behavioral data? Or perhaps there is a best-practice combination between them that should be employed? Is the description of the phenomenon enough or should we delve deeper in an attempt to explain it? Can a set of findings in one culture inform other cultures as well? Other questions relate to content, such as the role of parents’ personalities, the characteristics of pairs of parents (e.g., when the father and mother in the same family unit display disparate parenting styles and/or driving behaviors), the impact of different types of family dynamics, and the weight of adolescents’ desire to differentiate themselves from their parents, to name but a few. The answers are undoubtedly more complicated than the questions. To gain a full understanding that will enable the design of countermeasures which will effectively lower existing teen drivers’ crash rates we must take a fresh look at the issue, make use of all possible research options and methodologies, and undertake analyses to differentiate groups and identify developmental trajectories. In addition, cross-cultural comparisons will make it possible to implement intervention solutions in different settings. Finally, notably missing from the literature is a sound and empirically grounded theory that affords a holistic view of young drivers in general, and the parental role in their driving behavior in particular. Such a theory would enable the differentiation of types of drivers and families and their particular needs, and provide a basis on which to customize interventions culturally and sub-culturally and to evaluate their effectiveness. We have come a long way in understanding the parental role in teen driving, but many challenges are still ahead. Some of them are being explored at this very moment.
4
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
References Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall Series in Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Baumrind, D., 1987. A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in contemporary America. In: Irwin, C.E. (Ed.), Adolescent Social Behavior and Health: New Directions for Child Development. Social and Behavioral Science Series 37, Fall. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Beck, K.H., Hartos, J.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2005. Parent–teen disagreement of parent-imposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: is discordance related to risky teen driving? Prevention Science 6, 177–185. Beck, K.H., Shattuck, T., Raleigh, R., 2001. Parental predictors of teen driving risk. American Journal of Health Behavior 25, 10–20. Bianchi, A., Summala, H., 2004. The genetics of driving behavior: parents’ driving style predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis & Prevention 36, 655–659. Bingham, C., Shope, J.T., 2004. Adolescent developmental antecedents of risky driving among young adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65, 84–94. Brookland, R., Begg, D., Langley, J., Ameratunga, S., 2014. Parental influence on adolescent compliance with graduated driver licensing conditions and crashes as a restricted licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 30–39. Burrus, B., Leeks, K.D., Sipe, T.A., Dolina, S., Soler, R., Elder, R., et al., 2012. Personto-person interventions targeted to parents and other care givers to improve adolescent health: a community guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42, 316–326. Carney, C., McGehee, D.V., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., Raby, M., 2010. Using an event triggered video intervention system to expand the supervised learning of newly licensed adolescent drivers. American Journal of Public Health 100, 1101–1106. Chen, M., Grube, J.W., Nygaard, P., Miller, B.A., 2008. Identifying social mechanisms for the prevention of adolescent drinking and driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40, 576–585. Ehsani, J., Simons-Morton, B., Albert, P.S., Klauer, S.G., 2014. The association between kinematic risky driving among parents and their teenage children: moderation by shared personality characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 56–61. Epstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., Bishop, D.S., 1983. The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 9, 171–180. Farah, H., Musicant, O., Shimshoni, Y., Toledo, T., Grimberg, E., Omer, H., Lotan, T., 2014. Can providing feedback on driving behavior and training on parental vigilant care affect male teen drivers and their parents? Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 62–70. Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.F., Chapline, J.F., Reinfurt, D.W., De Leonardis, D.M., 2001. Relationship of parent driving records to the driving records of their children. Accident Analysis & Prevention 33, 229–234. Foss, R.D., 2007. Improving graduated driver licensing systems: a conceptual approach and its implications. Journal of Safety Research 38, 185–192. ˜ F., Kalicka, E.A., Winston, F.K., 2009. AssoGinsburg, K.R., Durbin, D.R., García-Espana, ciations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes. Pediatrics 124, 1040–1051. Goodwin, A.H., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., Harrell, S., 2014. Parent comments and instruction during the first four months of supervised driving: an opportunity missed? Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 15–22. Goodwin, A.H., Walter, M.W., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., 2006. Parental supervision of teenage drivers in a graduated licensing system. Traffic Injury Prevention 7, 224–231. Graber, J.A., Nichols, T., Lynne, S.D., Brooks-Gunn, J., Botvin, G.J., 2006. A longitudinal examination of family, friend, and media influences on competent versus problem behaviors among urban minority youth. Applied Developmental Science 10, 75–85. Hartos, J.L., Eitel, P., Haynie, D.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2000. Can I take the car? Relations among parenting practices and adolescent problem-driving practices. Journal of Adolescent Research 15, 352–367. Kotchick, B.A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Miller, K.S., 2001. Adolescent sexual risk behavior: a multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 21, 493–519. Lahatte, A., Le Pape, M., 2008. Is the way young people drive a reflection of the way their parents drive? An econometric study of the relation between parental risk and their children’s risk. Risk Analysis 28, 627–634. Laird, R., 2014. Parenting adolescent drivers is both a continuation of parenting from earlier periods and an anticipation of a new challenge. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 5–14. McGehee, D.V., Raby, M., Carney, C., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., 2007. Extending parental mentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen drivers. Journal of Safety Research 38, 215–227. Miller, G., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Driving styles among young novice drivers: the contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 558–570. Mirman, J.H., Curry, A.E., Fisher-Thiel, M.C., Durbin, D.R., 2014. It takes two: a brief report examining mutual support between parents and teens learning to drive. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 23–29. Nijhof, K.S., Engles, R.C.M.E., 2007. Parenting style, coping strategies, and the expression of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence 30, 709–720. Olson, D.H., 1986. Circumplex model VII: validation studies and FACES. Family Process 25, 337–351. Parker, J.S., Benson, M.J., 2004. Parent–adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence 39, 519–530.
Prato, C.G., Lotan, T., Toledo, T., 2009. Intrafamilial transmission of driving behavior: evidence from in-vehicle data recorders. Transportation Research Record 2138, 54–65. Prato, C.G., Toledo, T., Lotan, T., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Modeling the behavior of novice young drivers during the first year after licensure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 480–486. Ramirez, M., Yang, J., Young, T., Roth, L., Garinger, A., Snetselaar, L., Peek-Asa, C., 2012. Implementation evaluation of steering teens safe: engaging parents to deliver a new parent-based teen driving intervention to their teens. Health Education and Behavior 40, 426–434. Rogers, R.W., 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. Guilford, New York, NY, p. 153e76. Schmidt, S., Morrongiello, B.A., Colwell, S., 2014. Evaluating a model linking assessed parent factors to four domains of youth risky driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 40–50. Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M.J., Hyde, M.K., 2014. Young novice drivers and the risky behaviours of parents and friends during the provisional (intermediate) license phase: a brief report. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 51–55. Shedler, J., Block, J., 1990. Adolescent drug use and psychological health: a longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist 45, 612–630. Shope, J.T., Bingham, C.R., 2008. Teen driving: motor–vehicle crashes and factors that contribute. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, 261–271. Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Catalano, R.F., 2008. Parenting and the young driver problem. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, 294–303. Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Zhang, Z., Kiauer, S.E., Lee, S.E., Wang, J., Albert, P.S., Dingus, T.A., 2011. Crash and risky driving involvement among novice adolescent drivers and their parents. American Journal of Public Health 101, 2362–2367. Steinberg, L., 2001. We know some things: parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and in prospect. Journal of Research in Adolescence 11, 1–19. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010a. Young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving: a new multidimensional measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 1009–1017. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010b. Attitudes toward accompanied driving: the views of teens and their parents. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 13, 269– 276. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010c. Keeping your child safe on the road: the parental factor in adolescent reckless driving. In: Hennessy, D. (Ed.), Traffic Psychology: An International Perspective. Hindawi Publishers, New York, NY. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Katz – Ben-Ami, L., 2012. The contribution of family climate for road safety and aspects of the social environment to the reported driving behavior of young drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 47, 1–10. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Katz – Ben-Ami, L., 2013. Family climate for road safety: a new concept and measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 54, 1–14. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Lotan, T., 2011. The contribution of a novel intervention to enhance safe driving among young drivers in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, 352–359. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., 2005. From parents to children—similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 8, 19–29. Toledo, T., Lotan, T., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Grimberg, E., 2012. Evaluation of a program to enhance young drivers’ safety in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention 45, 705–710. Turner, R.A., Irwin Jr., C.E., Tschann, J.M., Millstein, S.G., 1993. Autonomy, relatedness, and early initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence. Health Psychology 12, 200–208. Williams, A.F., Tefft, B.C., Grabowski, J.G., 2012. Graduated driver licensing research, 2010-present. Journal of Safety Research 43, 195–203. Wills, T.A., McNamara, G., Vaccaro, D., Hirky, A.E., 1996. Escalated substance use: a longitudinal grouping analysis from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105, 166–180. Wilson, R.J., Meckle, W., Wiggins, S., Cooper, P.J., 2006. Young driver risk in relation to parents’ retrospective driving record. Journal of Safety Research 37, 325– 332. Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., 2006. Competent independent driving as an archetypal task of adolescence. Injury Prevention 12 (Suppl. 1), i1–i3. Yang, J., Campo, S., Ramirez, M., Richards Krapfl, J., Cheng, G., Peek-Asa, C., 2013. Family communication patterns and teen drivers’ attitudes toward driving safety. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 27, 334–341. Zakrajsek, J.S., Shope, J.T., Greenspan, A.I., Wang, J., Bingham, R.C., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2013. Effectiveness of a brief parent-directed teen driver safety intervention (checkpoints) delivered by driver education instructors. Journal of Adolescent Health 53, 27–33.
Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari ∗ Bar Ilan University, The Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel ∗ Tel.:
+972 3 5318066; fax: +972 3 7384042. E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 25 February 2014
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
Editorial
The parental factor in adolescent reckless driving: The road ahead
Adolescence is characterized by experimentation with risky behaviors, and risky driving is one of them. Such behavior represents a serious threat to youngsters’ health, and may even be fatal, with car crashes being the leading cause of injury and death in this age group (Beck et al., 2005; Winston and Senserrick, 2006), especially for males (Shope and Bingham, 2008). While this is a well-known fact, an integrative explanation of the complex mechanisms underlying the adolescent tendency is still lacking. Such a model is a prerequisite for the design of effective countermeasures. One major issue that has to be taken into account is the role played by parents in shaping teen driving behavior. It is important to bear in mind that for teens, driving is not just a quick and easy way to get from place to place. Often it is the danger and sensations associated with driving that make it so attractive and enjoyable at this age. Multiple factors come into play here, such as displaying mastery of a desired skill, emotional regulation of threats and moods, and coping with the social demands and challenges inherent in this period (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010c). Moreover, though we tend to perceive risky driving as unreservedly maladaptive, risk taking is also one way in which adolescents cope with a central developmental task: liberating themselves from their parents and asserting themselves as grown-ups and independent autonomous individuals (Baumrind, 1987; Shedler and Block, 1990). Although adolescents in general exhibit a higher risk endorsement than their parents (e.g., Simons-Morton et al., 2011), empirical evidence also show that the model of driving behavior parents provide is reflected in their offspring’s driving. In fact, parents’ involvement in traffic violations and car crashes has been shown to predict their children’s involvement in similar incidents (Ferguson et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2006). Moreover, studies using self-report questionnaires have found evidence for intergenerational transmission of driving styles (Bianchi and Summala, 2004; Miller and Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010; Taubman – Ben-Ari et al., 2005), as well as driving norms and values (Lahatte and Le Pape, 2008), and studies based on in-vehicle data recorders report parent–teen resemblance in driving behavior (Prato et al., 2009, 2010). Significant associations have been found not only between the two generations’ driving styles, but also between parents’ habitual driving modes and their teens’ attitudes toward accompanied driving (ATAD; Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010b), which, in turn, affect their endorsement of driving style (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010a). Thus, parental tendencies for anxious, risky, and angry driving styles were related to higher tension, avoidance, disapproval, and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.011 0001-4575/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
anxiety in their children’s attitude toward the accompanied driving period, while a higher parental tendency for a careful driving style was related to lower negative ATADs among the adolescents. As the accompanied driving period may be critical in establishing safer driving habits that will continue to be practiced once adolescents are permitted to drive on their own, this insight into parents’ impact on teen drivers is highly significant. Additional validating evidence of the parental influence is provided by the studies of Brookland et al. (2014), Ehsani et al. (2014), Scott-Parker et al. (2014), and Schmidt et al. (2014) in the current issue. Brookland et al. (2014) found that adolescents’ crash involvement was related to parents’ crash involvement; Ehsani et al. (2014) established a correlation between the kinematic driving of parent–teen pairs, which was most pronounced in the beginning of teens’ driving experience; Scott-Parker et al. (2014) show that the risky driving behavior of young male drivers was associated with the perceived riskiness of their fathers’ driving, and the same tended to be true for female drivers and their mothers; and Schmidt et al. (2014) report that parental modeling of aggressive driving, substance use driving, distracted driving, and moving violations was predictive of youth risk in all domains of risky driving examined in their study. Taken together, these investigations provide further indications that an individual’s driving style may be shaped within the family of origin, and may be associated with the parents’ driving styles and behaviors. Despite the importance of this basic observation, our understanding of the mechanism that might explain it is still incomplete. On the one hand, children model themselves on their parents in all aspects of life. Since teens are exposed to their parents’ driving throughout their lives, it is reasonable to assume that they will model their own driving behavior on their parents as well, as research has indeed found. On the other hand, adolescence is the time when teens are trying to prove their individuality and thus behave in a differentiated mode from their parents, which is reflected in part in the fact that the associations between the generations in respect to driving behaviors are far from complete. Thus, it is still necessary to gain a deeper understanding of parent–teen dynamics and obtain a fuller picture of the parental factors contributing to teens’ driving behavior. One possible explanation for the parental influence lies in the socialization processes through which parents communicate their standards of conduct. These include parental monitoring of adolescent behavior, the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship, and parent–adolescent communication (Kotchick et al., 2001).
2
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
The first of these, parental monitoring and control, has been shown to be inversely associated with involvement in reckless driving. When parents know what their adolescent children are doing and who their friends are, impose limits on teenage passengers and night driving, supervise their teen’s driving, and restrict access to a car, the adolescents are more likely to take fewer risks, report less speeding and more seat belt use, and be involved in fewer traffic violations (Beck et al., 2001; Bingham and Shope, 2004; Graber et al., 2006; Hartos et al., 2000; Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – BenAmi, 2013). The study by Brookland et al. (2014) in the current issue provides further evidence of the validity of this avenue of research by indicating that the children of parents who implement fewer driving rules exhibit a lower compliance with GDL conditions. The second factor, the way adolescents perceive their relationship with their parents, is another important predictor of teens’ risk-taking behavior. Research has shown that the perception of support from parents is related to lower risk taking by children (Parker and Benson, 2004), and that emotional responsiveness and psychological autonomy-granting by parents promote the development of a responsible, competent adolescent (Nijhof and Engles, 2007; Steinberg, 2001). Moreover, teens with authoritative parents reported half the crash risk in the preceding year than those with uninvolved parents (Ginsburg et al., 2009). When the Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein et al., 1983) was used to examine teens’ perceptions of problem solving, communication, affective reaction, affective involvement, and general functioning in the family, these dimensions were found to be significantly and negatively related to their willingness to take risks while driving (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013; study 3). Furthermore, the family’s coherence and adaptability (Olson, 1986) have both been negatively related to endorsement of the reckless and angry driving styles, and positively associated with a preference for careful driving (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013; study 4). These findings suggest that positive family processes do more than simply discourage dangerous driving behaviors among adolescents; they may also help develop positive assets or strengths in their youngsters that work to prevent such behaviors (Chen et al., 2008). The studies of Laird (2014) and of Mirman et al. (2014) in the current issue provide insight into how the parent–teen relationship can positively impact adolescent driving behavior. Laird (2014) reports that parents who have an established style of providing structure and autonomy support to their children are more likely to integrate involvement in the driving process and the imposition of driving limits into their routine parenting style. Mirman et al. (2014) show the importance of support provided by parents and teens to each other in the process of driving practice, so that parents in mutually supportive dyads reported stronger intentions to be engaged in their teens’ practice driving during the permit phase than those in dyads where both members reported receiving a low level of support. Research has also found the third factor, parent–adolescent communication, to be related to adolescent driving, with poor parent–child communication associated with risky driving behavior (Turner et al., 1993; Wills et al., 1996), and higher frequency of parent–teen communication about safe driving (as reported by teens) associated with teens’ positive attitudes toward safe driving (Yang et al., 2013). While these studies indicate the significance of family communication, it is important to note that Goodwin et al. (2006) found that although there was general agreement between parents and teens as to whether certain things were said or done by the parents concerning the youngsters’ driving, the interpretations of these acts by the two generations barely exceeded the level of agreement that would occur by chance. Another study found only modest agreement between parents and their teens in respect to parentally imposed restrictions on mobile phone
use while driving (Foss, 2007). Foss alludes to a basic communication gap between parents and their teenage offspring, so that the message parents believe they are conveying by their words or actions and the message perceived by the adolescents may not be one and the same. Such communication problems are of considerable concern, as Beck et al. (2005) found that greater agreement regarding restricted driving conditions was significantly associated with decreased driving risk among newly licensed young drivers. New evidence reported by Goodwin et al. (2014) in the current issue indicates that when parents are accompanying their offspring in the car, the most common type of comment they make is instruction about vehicle handling or operation, followed by pointing out something about the driving environment, negative remarks about the teen’s driving, and helping the driver navigate. Other potentially helpful types of instruction, including explanations or insights relating to higher-order skills (e.g., hazard anticipation and detection), were less frequent. Such information, obtained from direct observation, enhances our awareness of the gap between professionals’ views of effective parental guidance and parents’ behavior in practice. The concept of Family Climate for Road Safety (FCRS) may help us to take a step forward in understanding the impact of the parent–teen relationship on adolescent driving by providing an integrative lens through which to view the complex issues involved. FCRS refers to the values, perceptions, priorities, and practices of parents and the family in regard to safe driving, as perceived by young drivers (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012, 2013). It consists of seven dimensions: (1) Modeling, i.e., the model that parents provide to their children by their own modes of driving and their degree of obedience to traffic regulations; (2) Feedback, relating to parents’ positive and encouraging comments to their offspring in regard to driving safely, and their ability to praise their children for safe and considerate driving; (3) Communication, a reference to open and direct communication between parents and adolescents in respect to driving behavior and risk taking, such as parents’ guidance on how to anticipate potential hazards on the road and inclusion of the young driver in framing the family “contract” regarding their driving; (4) Monitoring, or parental observation and supervision of their youngsters’ driving, including making sure they do not drive recklessly and having them inform the parents of where they are taking the car, who is going with them, and when they intend to be home; (5) Commitment to safety, a reflection of parents’ authentic commitment to road safety, obeying traffic laws, and considerate driving, including the time they are willing to invest in safety education; (6) Messages, a measure of parents’ clear verbal safety messages to young drivers that are understood by their children; and (7) Limits, i.e., the extent to which parents set systematic and clear-cut boundaries on adolescents’ driving behavior, discipline them for traffic violations, and make known the restrictions that will be imposed if they do not follow these rules. Studies have found that young drivers who perceive their parents to be good role models, to provide encouraging and empowering feedback for safe driving, to enable open communication, to convey clear messages regarding safe driving, to monitor their driving, and to set well-defined limits on breaking traffic laws, report taking risks less frequently, being more personally committed to safety, and driving more carefully and in a less aggressive and reckless manner. On the other hand, teens who perceive their parents to be uncommitted to safety report driving more recklessly and being less committed to safety themselves (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012, 2013). In addition to increasing our understanding of the nature of the parental influence on teen driving, these findings call attention to a crucial task for professionals: the need to identify different kinds of families and the particular dynamics within them during the course
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
of a teen’s transition to driving. Being able to describe families in a more precise manner may help to design more effective interventions that are tailored to the needs of different groups. To do that, we have to refrain from talking about parents or families in general, and concentrate efforts on identifying discrete processes in a number of different family types. Meanwhile, a variety of interventions aimed at encouraging parents’ involvement, supervision, and management have been suggested and evaluated. Most programs share three basic elements – education, discussion, and practice of a new skill (Burrus et al., 2012) – and have been shown to have a positive effect on adolescents’ health outcomes, thus indicating the importance of including parents in efforts to reduce teens’ engagement in risky driving from a different perspective (Williams et al., 2012). The Checkpoint Program, based on Protection Motivation theory (Rogers, 1983), was designed to encourage parents of teens who are beginning to drive independently to limit the adolescents’ driving under high-risk conditions. Following implementation in several settings, the program was found to increase parent–teen communication about driving and limit setting, and to reduce traffic violations (Simons-Morton et al., 2008; Zakrajsek et al., 2013). Another program that targets parents is Steering Teens Safe, based on Bandura’s (Bandura, 1986) social cognitive theory and family communication theory (Ramirez et al., 2012). Here, parents are instructed in how to be a role model by demonstrating driving skills and discussing driving issues with their teens. The program teaches parents strategies drawn from motivational interviewing techniques that are meant to improve parent–teen communication about safe driving, special driving situations, and rural roads. An evaluation study (Ramirez et al., 2012) found that the intervention was accepted by the participating parents and encouraged them to talk to their teens about driving and to demonstrate safe driving behavior. An Israeli program called Green Light for Life (GLL) is directed at parent–teen dyads. Aimed at improving the quantity and quality of adolescents’ driving during the accompanied driving period (ADP), it begins with a face-to-face meeting between a GLL representative and the young driver and his or her parents in the family home as soon as possible after the teen passes the on-road test and enters the ADP. The meeting deals with fundamental issues, including: explaining the goals and importance of the ADP; enabling the young driver and the parents to voice their expectations from the ADP in an attempt to bridge the gap between them; framing an agreement as to the rules and language to be used to manage the in-vehicle dynamics during accompanied trips; encouraging the family to take as many accompanied trips as possible, and to do so in a variety of driving conditions; and encouraging the parents to utilize their experience and hazard perception skills to help the young driver predict and perceive conditions that could develop into dangerous situations. In addition, the families are given a kit containing multimedia guidance materials. Two evaluation studies using self-report measures and objective crash data indicated that GLL participants were involved in fewer traffic crashes than those who did not participate in the program (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Lotan, 2011; Toledo et al., 2012). Technology can also assist parents in monitoring and shaping the driving behavior of their teens. One program that employed event-triggered video feedback and parental mentoring during the early period of independent driving led to a significant decrease in teens’ safety-relevant events, with the riskiest drivers benefiting the most (Carney et al., 2010; McGehee et al., 2007). Farah et al. (2014) in the current issue, continue the effort to make use of technology to help parents enhance the safety of their teen drivers. The authors utilized in-vehicle data recorders (IVDR), which record events of extreme g-forces in the vehicle, to document and
3
provide feedback on the driving behavior of members of the family. In one of the four study groups, the parents also received special training. It was found that young male drivers exposed to the intervention that included parental training recorded significantly lower events rates during the first months of independent driving than the control group, which received neither feedback nor parental education. These programs, and others like them, clearly demonstrate the important role parents play in improving the safety of young drivers. They also underline the essential qualities needed for parents to achieve this goal: the ability to provide feedback, to engage in effective communication, to exhibit mentoring skills, to guide and empower young drivers, and, of course, to serve consistently as positive models for safe driving. This special issue, dedicated to the role parents play in their children’s driving habits, brings together articles from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. They join previous research in demonstrating the positive impact that good family relations, benevolent parental involvement, open, supportive, and sensitive communication, and especially modeling can have on young drivers’ behavior on the roads. Perhaps even more importantly, they highlight the commonality of interests and understandings of researchers from around the world in what appears to be a virtually universal phenomenon. Interestingly, the evidence comes from investigations using different methodologies, and includes naturalistic studies and those based on the self-reports of adolescents and of parents and young drivers alike. As this issue indicates, progress has been made in understanding the role of parents in teen driving. However, a number of points are still controversial and certain questions remain to be answered. Some relate to methodology: Should research examine parent–teen pairs or are there insights to be gained from looking at only one member of this dyad? Can we rely on self-report studies or should we only relate to observational or behavioral data? Or perhaps there is a best-practice combination between them that should be employed? Is the description of the phenomenon enough or should we delve deeper in an attempt to explain it? Can a set of findings in one culture inform other cultures as well? Other questions relate to content, such as the role of parents’ personalities, the characteristics of pairs of parents (e.g., when the father and mother in the same family unit display disparate parenting styles and/or driving behaviors), the impact of different types of family dynamics, and the weight of adolescents’ desire to differentiate themselves from their parents, to name but a few. The answers are undoubtedly more complicated than the questions. To gain a full understanding that will enable the design of countermeasures which will effectively lower existing teen drivers’ crash rates we must take a fresh look at the issue, make use of all possible research options and methodologies, and undertake analyses to differentiate groups and identify developmental trajectories. In addition, cross-cultural comparisons will make it possible to implement intervention solutions in different settings. Finally, notably missing from the literature is a sound and empirically grounded theory that affords a holistic view of young drivers in general, and the parental role in their driving behavior in particular. Such a theory would enable the differentiation of types of drivers and families and their particular needs, and provide a basis on which to customize interventions culturally and sub-culturally and to evaluate their effectiveness. We have come a long way in understanding the parental role in teen driving, but many challenges are still ahead. Some of them are being explored at this very moment.
4
Editorial / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4
References Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall Series in Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Baumrind, D., 1987. A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in contemporary America. In: Irwin, C.E. (Ed.), Adolescent Social Behavior and Health: New Directions for Child Development. Social and Behavioral Science Series 37, Fall. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Beck, K.H., Hartos, J.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2005. Parent–teen disagreement of parent-imposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: is discordance related to risky teen driving? Prevention Science 6, 177–185. Beck, K.H., Shattuck, T., Raleigh, R., 2001. Parental predictors of teen driving risk. American Journal of Health Behavior 25, 10–20. Bianchi, A., Summala, H., 2004. The genetics of driving behavior: parents’ driving style predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis & Prevention 36, 655–659. Bingham, C., Shope, J.T., 2004. Adolescent developmental antecedents of risky driving among young adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65, 84–94. Brookland, R., Begg, D., Langley, J., Ameratunga, S., 2014. Parental influence on adolescent compliance with graduated driver licensing conditions and crashes as a restricted licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 30–39. Burrus, B., Leeks, K.D., Sipe, T.A., Dolina, S., Soler, R., Elder, R., et al., 2012. Personto-person interventions targeted to parents and other care givers to improve adolescent health: a community guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42, 316–326. Carney, C., McGehee, D.V., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., Raby, M., 2010. Using an event triggered video intervention system to expand the supervised learning of newly licensed adolescent drivers. American Journal of Public Health 100, 1101–1106. Chen, M., Grube, J.W., Nygaard, P., Miller, B.A., 2008. Identifying social mechanisms for the prevention of adolescent drinking and driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40, 576–585. Ehsani, J., Simons-Morton, B., Albert, P.S., Klauer, S.G., 2014. The association between kinematic risky driving among parents and their teenage children: moderation by shared personality characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 56–61. Epstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., Bishop, D.S., 1983. The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 9, 171–180. Farah, H., Musicant, O., Shimshoni, Y., Toledo, T., Grimberg, E., Omer, H., Lotan, T., 2014. Can providing feedback on driving behavior and training on parental vigilant care affect male teen drivers and their parents? Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 62–70. Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.F., Chapline, J.F., Reinfurt, D.W., De Leonardis, D.M., 2001. Relationship of parent driving records to the driving records of their children. Accident Analysis & Prevention 33, 229–234. Foss, R.D., 2007. Improving graduated driver licensing systems: a conceptual approach and its implications. Journal of Safety Research 38, 185–192. ˜ F., Kalicka, E.A., Winston, F.K., 2009. AssoGinsburg, K.R., Durbin, D.R., García-Espana, ciations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes. Pediatrics 124, 1040–1051. Goodwin, A.H., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., Harrell, S., 2014. Parent comments and instruction during the first four months of supervised driving: an opportunity missed? Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 15–22. Goodwin, A.H., Walter, M.W., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., 2006. Parental supervision of teenage drivers in a graduated licensing system. Traffic Injury Prevention 7, 224–231. Graber, J.A., Nichols, T., Lynne, S.D., Brooks-Gunn, J., Botvin, G.J., 2006. A longitudinal examination of family, friend, and media influences on competent versus problem behaviors among urban minority youth. Applied Developmental Science 10, 75–85. Hartos, J.L., Eitel, P., Haynie, D.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2000. Can I take the car? Relations among parenting practices and adolescent problem-driving practices. Journal of Adolescent Research 15, 352–367. Kotchick, B.A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Miller, K.S., 2001. Adolescent sexual risk behavior: a multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 21, 493–519. Lahatte, A., Le Pape, M., 2008. Is the way young people drive a reflection of the way their parents drive? An econometric study of the relation between parental risk and their children’s risk. Risk Analysis 28, 627–634. Laird, R., 2014. Parenting adolescent drivers is both a continuation of parenting from earlier periods and an anticipation of a new challenge. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 5–14. McGehee, D.V., Raby, M., Carney, C., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., 2007. Extending parental mentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen drivers. Journal of Safety Research 38, 215–227. Miller, G., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Driving styles among young novice drivers: the contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 558–570. Mirman, J.H., Curry, A.E., Fisher-Thiel, M.C., Durbin, D.R., 2014. It takes two: a brief report examining mutual support between parents and teens learning to drive. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 23–29. Nijhof, K.S., Engles, R.C.M.E., 2007. Parenting style, coping strategies, and the expression of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence 30, 709–720. Olson, D.H., 1986. Circumplex model VII: validation studies and FACES. Family Process 25, 337–351. Parker, J.S., Benson, M.J., 2004. Parent–adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence 39, 519–530.
Prato, C.G., Lotan, T., Toledo, T., 2009. Intrafamilial transmission of driving behavior: evidence from in-vehicle data recorders. Transportation Research Record 2138, 54–65. Prato, C.G., Toledo, T., Lotan, T., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Modeling the behavior of novice young drivers during the first year after licensure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 480–486. Ramirez, M., Yang, J., Young, T., Roth, L., Garinger, A., Snetselaar, L., Peek-Asa, C., 2012. Implementation evaluation of steering teens safe: engaging parents to deliver a new parent-based teen driving intervention to their teens. Health Education and Behavior 40, 426–434. Rogers, R.W., 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. Guilford, New York, NY, p. 153e76. Schmidt, S., Morrongiello, B.A., Colwell, S., 2014. Evaluating a model linking assessed parent factors to four domains of youth risky driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 40–50. Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M.J., Hyde, M.K., 2014. Young novice drivers and the risky behaviours of parents and friends during the provisional (intermediate) license phase: a brief report. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 51–55. Shedler, J., Block, J., 1990. Adolescent drug use and psychological health: a longitudinal inquiry. American Psychologist 45, 612–630. Shope, J.T., Bingham, C.R., 2008. Teen driving: motor–vehicle crashes and factors that contribute. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, 261–271. Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Catalano, R.F., 2008. Parenting and the young driver problem. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, 294–303. Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Zhang, Z., Kiauer, S.E., Lee, S.E., Wang, J., Albert, P.S., Dingus, T.A., 2011. Crash and risky driving involvement among novice adolescent drivers and their parents. American Journal of Public Health 101, 2362–2367. Steinberg, L., 2001. We know some things: parent–adolescent relationships in retrospect and in prospect. Journal of Research in Adolescence 11, 1–19. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010a. Young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driving: a new multidimensional measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42, 1009–1017. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010b. Attitudes toward accompanied driving: the views of teens and their parents. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 13, 269– 276. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010c. Keeping your child safe on the road: the parental factor in adolescent reckless driving. In: Hennessy, D. (Ed.), Traffic Psychology: An International Perspective. Hindawi Publishers, New York, NY. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Katz – Ben-Ami, L., 2012. The contribution of family climate for road safety and aspects of the social environment to the reported driving behavior of young drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 47, 1–10. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Katz – Ben-Ami, L., 2013. Family climate for road safety: a new concept and measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 54, 1–14. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Lotan, T., 2011. The contribution of a novel intervention to enhance safe driving among young drivers in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43, 352–359. Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., 2005. From parents to children—similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 8, 19–29. Toledo, T., Lotan, T., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Grimberg, E., 2012. Evaluation of a program to enhance young drivers’ safety in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention 45, 705–710. Turner, R.A., Irwin Jr., C.E., Tschann, J.M., Millstein, S.G., 1993. Autonomy, relatedness, and early initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence. Health Psychology 12, 200–208. Williams, A.F., Tefft, B.C., Grabowski, J.G., 2012. Graduated driver licensing research, 2010-present. Journal of Safety Research 43, 195–203. Wills, T.A., McNamara, G., Vaccaro, D., Hirky, A.E., 1996. Escalated substance use: a longitudinal grouping analysis from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105, 166–180. Wilson, R.J., Meckle, W., Wiggins, S., Cooper, P.J., 2006. Young driver risk in relation to parents’ retrospective driving record. Journal of Safety Research 37, 325– 332. Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., 2006. Competent independent driving as an archetypal task of adolescence. Injury Prevention 12 (Suppl. 1), i1–i3. Yang, J., Campo, S., Ramirez, M., Richards Krapfl, J., Cheng, G., Peek-Asa, C., 2013. Family communication patterns and teen drivers’ attitudes toward driving safety. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 27, 334–341. Zakrajsek, J.S., Shope, J.T., Greenspan, A.I., Wang, J., Bingham, R.C., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2013. Effectiveness of a brief parent-directed teen driver safety intervention (checkpoints) delivered by driver education instructors. Journal of Adolescent Health 53, 27–33.
Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari ∗ Bar Ilan University, The Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Social Work, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel ∗ Tel.:
+972 3 5318066; fax: +972 3 7384042. E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 25 February 2014
