Parenting adolescent drivers is both a continuation of parenting from earlier periods and an anticipation of a new challenge

Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Parenting adolescent drivers is both a continuation of parenting from earlier periods and an anticipation of a new challenge Robert D. Laird ∗ Department of Psychology, GP 2001, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 22 March 2013 Received in revised form 13 November 2013 Accepted 20 November 2013 Available online 5 December 2013 Keywords: Parenting Novice driver Adolescent driver Motor-vehicle

a b s t r a c t Greater parental involvement in the driving process and greater parent-imposed limits on novice adolescent drivers hold promise for reducing driving fatalities. However, relatively little is known about why some parents are more involved in the driving process than others. Driving-specific parenting may be both a continuation of established patterns of parenting and a response to a novel developmental task. Adolescents (n = 242, M age 15.4 years, 49% male) who were enrolled in a drivers’ education courses and their parents (n = 276, 70% mothers) completed questionnaires reporting pre-driving parenting styles and monitoring behaviors; the adolescents’ previous driving experiences; perceptions of risks for novice adolescent drivers; attitudes regarding parental involvement; and expected levels of limit-setting and autonomy attainment once adolescents begins driving. Parents’ and adolescents’ involvement attitudes and expectations for limits on driving and autonomy attainment were linked in multivariate models with established patterns of parenting and perceptions of risk. The discussion emphasizes implications for prevention and intervention efforts to increase parental involvement and limits. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Injuries suffered in car crashes are the leading cause of death during adolescence in the United States (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2013). Public health researchers have identified parents’ restrictions of adolescents’ driving as a primary target for intervention with the underlying assumption that more restrictions will reduce risky driving behavior, accidents, and deaths (Beck et al., 2002; Blachman and Abrams, 2008; D’Angelo et al., 2010; Keating, 2007; Shope, 2010). The current study was conducted to discover why some parents expect to be more involved in the driving process, to impose more restrictions on newly licensed drivers, and to keep restrictions in place for a longer period of time as well as why some adolescents view parental restrictions of driving as a more legitimate use of parental authority. To date, research on parenting teen drivers has primarily emphasized similarity in parent and adolescent driving styles and behaviors (e.g., Bianchi and Summala, 2004; Ferguson et al., 2001; Lahatte and Le Pape, 2008; Miller and Taubman-Ben-Ari, 2010) or has focused on the consequences of parental involvement and limits (e.g., Hartos et al., 2002; Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2012). Only one previous study (Hartos et al., 2004a) was conducted deliberately to understand why some parents are (or expect

∗ Tel.: +1 504 280 5454. E-mail address: [email protected] 0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.11.012

to be) more involved in the driving process than others or why some parents impose (or expect to impose) more limits. The current study expands on Hartos et al.’s (2004a) contribution by focusing on potential antecedents of three related aspects of driving-specific parenting and of adolescents’ cognitions regarding the legitimacy of parent-imposed driving restrictions. The three aspects of drivingspecific parenting are parents’ and adolescents’ expectations for (a) how involved parents should be in the driving process, (b) the extent of limits imposed on newly licensed drivers by parents, and (c) the rate at which adolescents will obtain driving autonomy (i.e., the rate at which any parent-imposed limits will be lifted). Parents who think they should be more involved in the driving process are more likely to impose limits on driving behavior (Williams et al., 2006). Most parents plan to (Hartos et al., 2004a; Sherman et al., 2004) or do impose limits on their newly licensed teenagers (Hartos et al., 2004b), but the limits often are not very strictly enforced or maintained for long (Hartos et al., 2000, 2004b). Nonetheless, more limits are associated with less risky driving behavior and with fewer traffic violations and crashes (Hartos et al., 2000, 2001, 2002; McCartt et al., 2003). Although no previous study has considered adolescents’ beliefs regarding the legitimacy of parent-imposed driving restrictions, previous research shows that adolescents vary in their beliefs regarding the legitimacy of parents’ authority to regulate adolescents’ behavior across a range of non-driving domains (for a review see Smetana, 2011). Furthermore, adolescents are more likely to comply with parents’ rules and restrictions (Darling et al., 2008; Kuhn et al., 2013), and to engage in less undesirable

6

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

behavior (Laird et al., 2010), when the adolescents feel that parents have legitimate authority to impose rules and restrictions. Driving-specific parenting and adolescents’ beliefs regarding the legitimacy of driving-specific parenting may be anteceded by family background factors (e.g., Williams et al., 2006), established patterns of parenting (e.g., Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2013), and driving-specific experiences and expectations (e.g., Hartos et al., 2004a). Parenting in many domains is regularly found to differ as a function of child and family demographic and background characteristics (see Bornstein, 2002). Accordingly, there is some evidence that driving-specific parenting also differs as a function of family background characteristics. Mothers think that parents should be more involved, should impose more limits, and should delay driving autonomy more than fathers (Hartos et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006). Although no teen sex differences have been found in intended or imposed parental restrictions (Hartos et al., 2001, 2004a,b), males engage in more risky driving behavior and are involved in more crashes than females (Hartos et al., 2001), and other studies find that parents are more likely to restrict the behavior of their daughters than their sons (see Racz and McMahon, 2011). Likewise, although no previous studies reported that intended restrictions differ as a function of adolescent age, most previous studies included a narrow age range (e.g., all of Hartos et al.’s 2004 participants were 16 years old) and other research shows that parents’ restrictions decrease over the course of adolescence (e.g., Laird et al., 2009). Furthermore, although one study found that family income was not related to parental involvement or driving limits (Williams et al., 2006), family income or socio-economic status has been linked to parenting in many other studies (see Gottfried et al., 2002). Previous research on driving-specific parenting has not tested whether involvement or limits are greater in two-parent parent families as compared to single-parent families but previous studies have found that children living in single parent homes report fewer restrictions than children living in two-parent homes (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1985). Driving-specific parenting also is likely embedded in the shared representations, stable conceptions of one another, and behavioral dispositions that define the parent–child relationship (Dix, 1991). Thus, driving-specific parenting is expected to be anteceded by parents’ general style of relating with their children as well as by more specific parenting practices. Conceptualizations of parenting grounded in Self-Determination Theory (e.g. Grolnick, 2003) frame parents’ general style of interacting with their children in terms of structure and autonomy support. Parents provide higher quality structure when guidelines in the home are clear and consistent, consequences are predictable, and parents maintain the role of authority (Farkas and Grolnick, 2010). High levels of autonomy support reinforce adolescent agency whereas low levels of autonomy support can produce the feeling that individuals are coerced by others (Grolnick, 2003). In a sample of college-age drivers, autonomy granting was not associated with parents’ limits or parents’ monitoring of driving behavior (Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2013). However, in a different study adolescents with authoritative parents experienced fewer crashes and engaged in less risky behavior than adolescents experiencing other parenting styles (Ginsburg et al., 2009). In terms of parenting practices, parents can monitor adolescents’ unsupervised leisure time activities by imposing rules limiting (e.g., no friends permitted in the home when parent are not at home) or requiring (e.g., teen must tell parents where the teen is going when the teen leaves the home) certain behaviors and by soliciting information regarding the adolescents’ whereabouts and activities (Stattin and Kerr, 2000; see also Racz and McMahon, 2011 for a review). Previous studies have reported links

between driving limits and how much adolescents kept their parents informed (e.g., Hartos et al., 2004a), which does not necessarily reflect parents’ efforts to monitor the adolescents’ behavior (see Stattin and Kerr, 2000). However, parents’ who monitor driving behavior more closely also impose more limits on driving behavior (Hartos et al., 2001; Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2013), suggesting that more leisure time monitoring also may be linked with greater parental involvement and more driving limits. More monitoring through solicitation and control also has been linked in previous studies to stronger beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority (Laird et al., 2010). The extent to which adolescents are prepared to drive, and the extent to which parents and adolescents perceive driving as risky also may be important predictors of driving-specific parenting and legitimacy beliefs (Hartos et al., 2004a). Early parent-supervised or parent-endorsed driving experiences may reflect higher levels of parental involvement. As such, more early experiences may be linked with attitudes favoring greater involvement. However, to the extent that more early experience makes parents’ and adolescents’ confident in adolescents’ driving abilities, more early experience also may forecast fewer subsequent limits on adolescents’ driving behavior and, therefore, quicker attainment of driving autonomy as well as weaker beliefs in the legitimacy of parent-imposed limits. In contrast, parents who perceive greater risk for novice drivers feel that parents should be more involved, that parents should impose more limits, and that limits should be in place for a longer period (Hartos et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006). In summary, the current study evaluated the extent to which driving-specific parenting and adolescents’ views of the legitimacy of driving-specific parenting reflect family backgrounds, the continuation of established patterns of parenting, and the anticipation of a new challenge for the adolescent. Parents’ and adolescents’ sex, adolescents’ age, family income, and single parent status were used to predict driving-specific parenting and legitimacy beliefs to assess the extent to which driving-specific parenting and adolescent beliefs differ as a function of family background characteristics. Parental structure and autonomy support were included to assess the extent to which drivingspecific parenting is rooted in established parenting styles. Parental monitoring of adolescents’ leisure time activities by means of solicitation and control through rules was included to assess the extent to which driving-specific parenting and beliefs are anteceded by specific parenting practices. Adolescents’ prior driving experiences (with automobiles or other vehicles) and parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of risk for newly licensed drivers were included to assess the extent to which driving-specific parenting and beliefs are anteceded by parents’ and adolescents’ preparation for, or anticipation of, a new challenge for the adolescents. Mothers were expected to report attitudes favoring more involvement, to anticipate imposing more limits, and to plan to grant autonomy more slowly than fathers. Attitudes favoring more involvement, more limits, slower autonomy attainment, and stronger legitimacy beliefs were expected in families where the parenting style is characterized by higher levels of structure and autonomy support and in families where parents more frequently monitor the adolescents’ peer relationships and leisure time activities using rules and solicitation. More prior driving experience was expected to be linked with attitudes favoring less parental involvement and with stronger legitimacy beliefs, but with fewer limits and faster autonomy attainment. Finally, parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of greater risk for novice drivers were expected to antecede attitudes favoring more involvement, more limits, slower autonomy attainment, and stronger legitimacy beliefs.

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

2. Method

7

higher scores indicating that more structure and autonomy support was provided by parents.

2.1. Participants Participants included 242 adolescents and 276 parents. In most families, only 1 parent participated (80% mothers), but two parents participated in 34 families. The adolescents ranged from 14 to 17 years of age (M age = 15.4 years, SD = .78) and an approximately equal number of female (50.8%) and male adolescents participated. The adolescents were ethnically diverse with adolescents identified by their parents as white (50%), Hispanic (16%), African American (18%), or of another ethnicity (16%). All parents living in the home were invited to participate, but only one parent was required to participate in the study. Most parents self-reported as the mother (70%) or father (25.5%) of the adolescent but a few (<5%) self-reported as grandparents, aunts, or step-parents. Most of the parents were female (73%), and most were in their first marriage (54%), had been remarried (19%), or were living together (2%). Mean annual family income was in the $60,000–80,000 range with 8% of families reporting annual incomes of $20,000 or less and 33% of families reporting annual incomes in excess of $100,000. 2.2. Procedure Following IRB approval, adolescent participants, who were not yet driving, and their parents were recruited from two drivers’ training programs in Jefferson Parish (i.e., county), Louisiana in the United States. Jefferson Parish is adjacent to, and includes many suburbs of, New Orleans. Participants were recruited between June and October, 2012. As part of the graduated licensing regulations in effect at the time, all individuals 16 years or younger (through July 31, 2012) or 17 years or younger (beginning August 1, 2012) were required to complete a drivers’ training program that included 30 h of classroom instruction and 8 h behind the wheel prior to obtaining a learner’s permit or intermediate license. Therefore, driver’s training programs served as the entry point into the licensing process for adolescent drivers. Participants were recruited through a privately-owned drivers’ training school (n = 141; 54% participation rate) and a driver’s training program offered by the Jefferson Parish School System (n = 100; 79% participation rate). Families were compensated $50 for completing the questionnaires. 2.3. Measures 2.3.1. Parenting style Parents and adolescents reported their perceptions of parental structure and autonomy support using items from the Parenting as a Social Context Questionnaire (Skinner et al., 2005). Parents responded to seven items assessing structure (e.g., “I make it clear what will happen if my son does not follow my rules”) and four items assessing autonomy support (e.g., “I encourage my daughter to express her opinions even when I don’t agree with them”). Adolescents responded to four items assessing structure (e.g., “When I want to do something, my parents show me how”) and to three items assessing autonomy support (e.g., “My parents trust me”). Note that parents reported on their own behavior as an individual but that adolescents reported on the behavior of their parents, rather than on the behavior of each parent individually. All responses were scored using a four-point scale (0 = not at all true, 1 = not very true, 2 = sort of true, 3 = very true). Separate scores were computed for parents and adolescents for both structure, ˛s = .67 & .75, for parent and adolescent reports, and autonomy support, ˛s = .64 & .67, as the means of the respective items. Scores index parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the structure and autonomy support provided by the parenting style in their family with

2.3.2. Parental monitoring Parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives on parental monitoring were assessed in terms of both control through rules and solicitation of information. To assess control through rules, parents and adolescents responded to six items (e.g., “Before you leave the house, how often do your parents require you to tell them where you are going and with whom? How often do your parents require that you tell them where you go, who you will be with, and what you will be doing when you leave the house?”) from Stattin and Kerr (2000). The solicitation items are newly developed for this study, but are modeled on the items used by Stattin and Kerr (2000). Adolescents were asked “Before you leave the house, how often do your parents ask (a) where you are going, (b) who will be with you, (c) what you plan to do, and (d) when you plan to return home?” as well as “When you are away from home how often do your parents call to check up on you?” and “When you return home, how often do your parents ask (a) where you went while you were out, (b) who was with you, and (c) what you did while you were out?” Responses to both sets of items were scored on a five-point scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = usually, 4 = always). Separate scores were computed for parents and adolescents for both control through rules, ˛s = .69 & .80, for parent and adolescent reports, respectively, and solicitation, ˛s = .88 & .91, as the means of the respective items. Scores index parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the extent to which parents monitor by imposing rules requiring the adolescent to keep parents informed and by soliciting information from the adolescent. Higher scores indicate more monitoring through rules and through solicitation, respectively.

2.3.3. Driving experience Parents and adolescents reported on the adolescents’ driving experience using seven newly developed items. The items asked “how many times have you (or your son/daughter) driven (a) a riding lawn mower, tractor, or other farm equipment, (b) an ATV, 4-wheeler, or go-cart, (c) an automobile at a camp, farm, or other non-road location, (d) an automobile on the streets with other cars when supervised by a parent, and (e) an automobile in parking lots or other places (away from cars) when supervised by a parent.” Responses were scored using a five-point modified frequency scale (0 = never, 1 = 1–2 times, 2 = 3–4 times, 3 = 5–6 times, 4 = 7 or more times). Separate scores were computed for parents and adolescents as the mean of the respective items, both ˛s = .75. Scores index parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the extent of the adolescents’ previous driving experiences with higher scores indicating more previous experience.

2.3.4. Driving risk perception Parents and adolescents reported their perceptions of the amount of risk associated with 36 behaviors or situations. Items were modeled on risk perception measures described by Williams et al. (2006) as well as risky driving behavior measures described by Hartos et al. (2002). Items asked “how much risk for crash or injury do you think newly licensed teens have” if they engage in a variety of driving maneuvers and behaviors (e.g., speeding, passing in no-passing zones, changing lanes without signaling) or drive in a variety of situations (e.g., drive between 11 PM and 6 AM, in bad weather, with several teen friends in the car). Responses were scored using a five-point scale (0 = no risk, 1 = low risk, 2 = moderate risk, 3 = high risk, 4 = extreme risk). Separate scores were computed for parents and adolescents as the mean of the 36 items, both ˛s = .95. The scores index parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of

8

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

risk for newly licensed drivers with higher scores indicating greater perceived risk. 2.3.5. Involvement attitudes Parents’ and adolescents’ attitudes regarding parental involvement in driving were assessed using items developed by Williams et al. (2006). Parents and adolescents were asked “how involved should parents be above and beyond drivers’ education and state laws” in seven areas (e.g., determining penalties and consequences for unsafe driving, teaching their teens to drive, supervising their teen’s driving after they are licensed). Responses were scored using a five-point scale (0 = not at all involved, 1 = just a little involved, 2 = somewhat involved, 3 = involved, 4 = highly involved). Separate involvement scores, indexing parents’ and adolescents’ attitudes regarding parental involvement, were computed for parents and adolescents as the mean of the respective items, ˛s = .89 & .86. Higher scores indicate attitudes favoring greater parental involvement. 2.3.6. Expected limits Items used to assess parents’ and adolescents’ expected limits for novice drivers were culled from several sources (e.g., Hartos et al., 2004a; Sherman et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2006) with the final 18 items selected to index a broad range of both safetyoriented and access-oriented restrictions. Parents reported how often they expected to limit each behavior when the adolescent received his or her license and adolescents reported how often they expected their parents to limit each behavior once the adolescent received his or her license. Item content included what Hartos et al. (2004a) termed trip limits (e.g., driving only in local areas) as well as safety limits (e.g., driving on high speed roads), but exploratory factor analyses of the items indicated that the full set of items was well-represented by a single factor. The adolescent version of the items asked “When you receive your drivers’ license, how often do you expect your parents to (a) limit you to driving only in local areas (your part of town), (b) limit you to only driving with a parent/adult in the car, (c) limit you to driving only to parent-approved destinations, (d) prohibit you from driving on high speed roads, (e) try to stop you from texting while driving, (f) try to make you wear your seatbelt, (g) stop you from driving in bad weather, (h) try to stop you from talking on the phone while driving, (i) limit your driving to daylight hours, (j) prohibit you from driving with other teenagers in the car, (k) limit you to driving close to home, (l) not let you go for a drive without a specific destination, (m) have a curfew for you (require you to be home by a certain time), (n) prohibit you from driving after 11 PM, (o) require you to get their permission before you take the car, (p) not let you drive if your grades are unacceptable, (q) limit you to having 1 friend in the car at a time, and (r) limit you to driving only on certain roads.” Responses were scored on a three-point scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = always). Separate expected limits scores were computed for parents and adolescents as the mean of the respective items, ˛s = .84 & .88. Higher scores indicate expectations for more limits being imposed on new drivers. 2.3.7. Autonomy expectations Parents and adolescents reported their expectations for the rate with which adolescents were expected to be granted behavioral and decision-making autonomy in the driving domain using seven items from Williams et al. (2006). The items ask “how soon after someone gets their drivers’ license so you think they should be able to (a) drive as late as they want, (b) take trips longer than a day in the car, (c) take the car without telling a parent where they are going, (d) drive a carload of teenagers, (e) drive whenever they want, (f) drive wherever they want, and (g) take day trips in the car to a destination that takes 2 h to reach.” The item asking

how soon adolescents should be able to have their own car was not used because owning a car is not necessarily a parent-imposed limit, and because responses to the item were not significantly correlated with responses to the other items suggesting that owning a car differs substantially from the other issues. The original 10point response scale was changed to a five-point scale (0 = 1 year or more after being licensed, 2 = after a few months, 3 = after a few weeks, 4 = after a few days, 5 = right away). Separate autonomy expectation scores were computed for parents and adolescents as the mean of the respective items, ˛s = .82 & .91. Higher scores indicate expectations for autonomy to be obtained more quickly, or in other words, expectations that any parent-imposed limits on adolescents’ driving will be removed more quickly. 2.3.8. Legitimacy beliefs Adolescents’ beliefs regarding the legitimacy of parents’ drivingrelevant restrictions and monitoring behavior were assessed using 11 newly developed items. The items ask whether it is okay, when teenagers just start driving, for parents to make rules (a) requiring teenagers to tell their parents when they will be back home before they take the car, (b) requiring teenagers to obey all laws and regulations, (c) requiring teenagers to ask permission before they take the car, (d) limiting driving in bad weather, (e) requiring teenagers to tell parents where they are going when they take the car, (f) prohibiting teenagers from driving with two or more passengers, (g) requiring teenagers to tell their parents who is driving with them before they take the car, (h) limiting where teenagers can drive, (i) about how teenagers spend their free time, (j) about where teenagers can go, and (k) about what time teenagers need to be home at night. Responses were scored using a four-point scale (0 = definitely not OK, 1 = not OK, 2 = OK, 3 = definitely OK). A single legitimacy beliefs score, indexing adolescents’ beliefs in the legitimacy of parents’ authority to impose driving rules, was computed as the mean of the 11 items, ˛ = .87. Higher scores reflect greater endorsement of the legitimacy of parents’ authority to impose driving restrictions. 2.4. Analysis plan Analyses first tested mean-level differences in parents’ and adolescents’ reports as well as bivariate associations among all variables. Subsequent multivariate models tested predictors of involvement attitudes, expected limits, autonomy expectations, and legitimacy beliefs. Parents’ and adolescents’ expectations for driving-specific parenting were analyzed separately because previous studies consistently demonstrate weak associations between parents’ and adolescents’ reports, particularly with respect to parenting behavior (Tein et al., 1994). Replication across parents’ and adolescents’ reports attests to the generalizability of findings and to the robustness of the associations. Analyses were complicated by the participation of multiple parents in some, but not all, families, which violates the assumption of independence of observations inherent in many statistics. To address the non-independence, all analyses were conducted in MPLUS 6.11 (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). Analyses using parents’ reports were conducted using the type = complex data specification which uses a sandwich estimator and maximum likelihood with robust standard errors to provide more accurate estimates of standard errors in complex datasets. 3. Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate associations Means and standard deviations for parents’ and adolescents’ reports of anticipated driving-specific parenting, pre-driving

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

9

Table 1 Comparison of means for parent-reported and adolescent-reported variables. Variable

Structure Autonomy support Solicitation Rules Driving experience Risk perceptions Involvement Attitudes Expected limits Autonomy Expectations Legitimacy beliefs

Parents’ reports

Adolescents’ reports

M (SD)

M (SD)

2.69 (.31) 2.71 (.39) 3.59 (.52) 3.51 (.52) 1.15 (.90) 3.33 (.44) 3.62 (.57) 1.55 (.24) .29 (.51) –

2.37 (.80) 2.69 (.75) 3.12 (.79) 3.01 (.77) 1.22 (.88) 2.72 (.55) 2.69 (.81) 1.15 (.33) 1.19 (.96) 2.12 (.48)

d

T

p

.59 .04 .73 .79 −.08 1.24 1.36 1.42 −1.25

6.00 .42 9.27 9.91 −1.86 15.21 16.82 17.44 −13.25

<.001 .68 <.001 <.001 .063 < .001 < .001 < .001 <.001

Note: Cohen’s d expresses the difference between parents’ and adolescents’ reports in terms of the pooled SD. Paired (within-family) T-values (estimate/SE) and their associated p-values were estimated in MPLUS using the type = complex specification to adjust standard errors for the nested dataset resulting from two parents providing data in some families.

parental monitoring behaviors and parenting styles, and drivingspecific experiences and cognitions are shown in Table 1. Compared to the adolescents’ reports, parents reported that they provide more structure, monitored more through solicitation and rules, perceived greater risk for novice drivers, favored more involved, expected to impose more limits, and expected autonomy to be obtained more slowly. There was less variability in parents’ reports than in adolescents’ reports, likely due to ceiling or floor effects. Effect sizes (indexed by Cohen’s d) show that the differences between parents and adolescents were more pronounced for risk perceptions, involvement, expected limits, and autonomy expectations than for parental monitoring behaviors and parenting styles. Bivariate associations are presented in Table 2. The standardized covariances reported in the table are equivalent to Pearson correlations for continuous variables and to point-biserial correlations for dichotomous dummy variables (Lee Rodgers and Nicewander, 1988). Standardized covariances, rather than t-tests, are reported for dichotomous variables because standardized covariances convey information very similar to information provided by t-tests, but standardized covariances also can be compared directly with the standardized betas reported in the multivariate analyses. Associations along the diagonal show generally modest congruence between parents’ and adolescents’ reports. Reports of the adolescents’ previous driving experiences were most congruent and reports of parenting styles and autonomy expectations were least congruent. Congruence in involvement attitudes and expected limits was similar to congruence for the two monitoring behaviors. The upper left portion of the table reports associations among background variables. Fathers were more likely to provide data when they had a son participating in the study and were less likely to provide data as part of a single parent family. Lower family incomes were reported by parents of older adolescents. Associations among parents’ reports (shown above the diagonal in Table 2) and among adolescents’ reports (shown below the diagonal) show somewhat distinct patterns in terms of family background variables, but show very similar patterns in terms of parenting behavior and styles. Fathers reported less solicitation and monitoring through rules, attitudes favoring less involvement, expected to impose fewer limits, and expected adolescents to obtain driving autonomy earlier than did mothers. Adolescent sex and age were mostly unrelated to parents’ reports of parenting. However, boys reported less solicitation, less monitoring through rules, less autonomy support, more driving experience, less risk, less parental involvement, fewer limits, quicker autonomy expectations, and viewed parental involvement in driving as less legitimate than did girls. Higher family incomes were associated with lower levels of parents’ perceived risk and fewer expected limits and with greater adolescent-reported structure. Single parents felt that

parents should be less involved than did parents in two-parent homes and adolescents living in single parent homes reported less structure than adolescents living in two-parent homes. Parents and adolescents who reported higher levels of structure, autonomy support, solicitation, and monitoring rules generally perceived greater risks for novice drivers, favored more involved, expected to impose more driving limits, and expected driving autonomy to be obtained more slowly. Adolescents’ driving experience was not associated with parents’ risk perceptions, involvement attitudes, or expected limits, but adolescents reporting more driving experience expected fewer limits, to obtain driving autonomy more quickly, and viewed parents’ restrictions as less legitimate. Parents and adolescents perceiving more risk favored more involvement, expected to impose more driving limits, and expected adolescents to obtain driving autonomy more slowly. 3.2. Multivariate associations In the final stage of the analyses, seven hierarchical regression models were fit to explore the contribution of parenting styles, parental monitoring behaviors, and driving-specific experiences and concerns to involvement attitudes, expected limits, autonomy expectations, and legitimacy beliefs. Predictors were entered in four steps beginning with the most distal and general variables and ending with the most proximal and driving-specific variables. In step 1, the background variables of adolescent sex (dummy coded to indicate male sex), adolescent age, family income, and single parent status (dummy coded) were entered. Parent sex (dummy coded to indicate fathers) also was included in the background variables step when predicting parent-reports to test whether expectations differed for mothers and fathers. Parent sex was not tested as a predictor of adolescent reports because adolescents reported their expectations for what their parents would do, rather than for what their mothers and fathers would do separately. The two parenting styles were entered in step 2, followed by the two monitoring behaviors in step 3. Driving experiences and risk perceptions were entered in step 4. 3.2.1. Predicting parent-reported expectations As shown in Table 3, the set of predictors accounted for 17% of the variance in parents’ involvement attitudes. Background characteristics explained a marginally significant 3% of the variance with parents of sons endorsing more involvement than parents of daughters, and single parents endorsing less involvement than other parents. Parenting styles contributed 6% of the variance. Parents who provided more structure felt that parents should be more involved. Monitoring behaviors did not contribute. Driving

10

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

Table 2 Bivariate associations among all variables by informant. Variables

2.

1. Father 2. Male adolescent 3. Adolescent age 4. Family income 5. Single parent family 6. Solicitation 7. Rules 8. Structure 9. Autonomy support 10. Driving experience 11. Risk perceptions 12. Involvement attitudes 13. Expected Limits 14. Autonomy expectations 15. Legitimacy beliefs

.31*** – −.02 .15 −.08 −.19* −.19* −.07 −.16* .21** −.26** −.25** −.19* .28*** −.31***

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

−.02 −.03 – −.33*** .20* .03 −.02 −.04 −.03 −.04 −.01 .01 −.16** −.05 .13*

.07 .14 −.34*** – −.56*** .01 .06 .14* .03 −.02 −.02 −.07 .04 .05 −.07

−.31** −.12 .21* −.55*** – −.01 .02 −.21** −.07 −.01 −.03 −.05 −.03 −.01 .00

−.26*** −.11 −.09 −.04 .09 .36*** .69*** .23*** .21*** −.08 .20** .14* .34*** −.14* .31***

−.20** −.06 −.12 .05 −.07 .56*** .29*** .21** .18** −.15* .18*** .18** .37*** −.15* .28***

−.07 −.05 −.05 .07 −.10 .16** .17** .12 .62*** .04 .23*** .29*** .11 −.15** .30***

−.13 −.08 .07 −.09 .09 .21*** .27*** .37*** .01 −.01 .23*** .29*** .15** −.17** .35***

.00 .18* .02 −.08 .07 −.03 −.04 −.01 .04 .83*** −.09 .02 −.20*** .23*** −.14*

−.17* −.03 .09 −.19** −.01 .40*** .30*** .25*** .22*** .03 .24*** .44*** .45*** −.36*** .43***

−.04 .15 −.02 .01 −.16* .07 .14** .24*** .13** .06 .33*** .24*** .39*** −.34*** .43***

−.18** −.06 .03 −.14* −.01 .42*** .36*** .12* .06 −.08 .56*** .32*** .23*** −.37*** .44***

.16** −.04 .14* −.07 .04 −.29*** −.31*** −.07 −.07 .04 −.36*** −.21*** −.42*** .08 −.38***

Note: Standardized covariances estimated based on ns of 276 and 242 for parent and adolescent reports, respectively. Associations among adolescent reports appear below the diagonal. Associations among parent reports appear above the diagonal. Associations between adolescent and parent reports are underlined and appear along the diagonal. Associations among parent reports and between parent and adolescent reports were estimated in MPLUS using the type = complex specification to adjust standard errors for the nested dataset resulting from two parents providing data in some families. Father, private program, male adolescent, and single parent families were specified as categorical dummy-coded variables. * p < .05 two-tailed. ** p < .01 two-tailed. *** p < .001 two-tailed.

Table 3 Summary of multivariate regression models predicting parent-reported attitudes and parenting expectations. Step

1.

2.

3.

4.

Total

Predictors

Background variables Male parent Male adolescent Adolescent age Family income Single parent family Parenting styles Structure Autonomy support Monitoring behaviors Solicitation Rules Driving-specific variables Driving experience Risk perceptions

Involvement attitudes

Expected limits

R

R

2

B (SE)

B*

.03+

2

Autonomy expectations

B (SE)

B*

.04* −.10 (.08) .15 (.07) −.01 (.04) −.02 (.02) −.21 (.09)

−.08 .13* −.02 −.08 −.16*

.06*** .21*** .06

.03 (.07) .10 (.08)

.02 .09

−.08 (.04) −.00 (.03) −.00 (.02) −.02 (.01) −.06 (.04)

−.15* −.00 −.01 −.17* −.12+

.10 (.05) −.00 (.04)

.12* −.01

.03 (.02) .39 (.09)

.05 .30***

.07***

.41***

.17 (.08) −.05 (.06) .09 (.04) .00 (.02) .04 (.08)

.15* −.05 .14** .01 .03

−.05 (.09) −.08 (.07)

−.03 −.06

−.19 (.10) −.17 (.08)

−.19+ .17*

.02 (.03) −.38 (.07)

.05 −.33***

.09** .15 (.03) .10 (.03)

.34*** .20**

−.02 (.01) .25 (.03)

−.08 .45***

.08**

.16***

.17***

B*

.01

.19***

.01

B (SE)

.04+

.02 .38 (.12) .09 (.12)

R2

.22**

Models were estimated in MPLUS using the type = complex specification to adjust standard errors for the nested dataset resulting from two parents providing data in some families. R2 was calculated as the proportion reduction in residual variance with statistical significance tested using Satorra-Bentler chi-square difference tests for nested models estimated using robust maximum likelihood. + p < .10 two-tailed. * p < .05 two-tailed. ** p < .01 two-tailed. *** p < .001 two-tailed.

specific variables explained 7% of the variance in parents’ expected involvement. Parents who perceived more risk felt that parents should be more involved in the driving process. The set of predictors accounted for 41% of the variance in parents’ expected limits. Background characteristics explained 4% of the variance. Fathers expected to impose fewer limits than mothers. Higher family income predicted fewer limits. Single parents expected to impose marginally fewer limits than other parents. Parenting styles contributed a non-significant 2% of the variance with parents providing more structure expecting to impose more limits. Monitoring behaviors contributed 19% of the variance. Parents who reported more solicitation expected to impose more limits as did parents who reported more monitoring through rules. Driving specific variables explained 16% of the variance in parents’ expected limits.

Parents who perceived more risk expected to impose more limits. The set of predictors accounted for 22% of the variance in parents’ autonomy expectations. Background characteristics explained a marginally significant 4% of the variance. Fathers expected autonomy to be obtained earlier than did mothers. Parents of older adolescents also expected autonomy to be obtained earlier. Parenting styles did not contribute. Monitoring behaviors contributed 9% of the variance with parents who reported more monitoring through rules expecting autonomy to be obtained more slowly. Parents who reported more solicitation also tended to expect autonomy to be obtained more slowly. Driving specific variables explained 8% of the variance in parents’ expected limits. Parents who perceived more risk expected autonomy to be obtained more slowly.

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

3.2.2. Predicting adolescent-reported expectations and beliefs As shown in Table 4, the set of predictors accounted for 28% of the variance in adolescents’ involvement attitudes. Background variables contributed 6% of the variance with boys endorsing less parental involvement than girls. Parenting styles contributed 9% of the variance. Adolescents reporting more structure felt that parents should be more involved and adolescents reporting more autonomy support felt that parents should be marginally more involved. Monitoring behaviors did not contribute. Driving specific variable explained 12% of the variance. Adolescents who perceived more risk felt that parents should be more involved. The set of predictors accounted for 35% of the variance in adolescent reports of expected driving limits. Background variables contributed 5% of the variance. Older adolescents and boys expected fewer limits. Parenting styles did not contribute. Monitoring behaviors explained 13% of the variance. Adolescents’ whose parents monitored more through rules expected more driving limits. Driving-specific variables explained 15% of the variance. Adolescents with more driving experience expected fewer limits whereas adolescents who perceived more risk expected more limits. The set of predictors accounted for 20% of the variance in adolescent reports of autonomy expectations. Background variables contributed 5% of the variance with boys expecting to obtain autonomy more quickly than girls. Parenting styles contributed a marginally significant 2% of the variance, but neither aspect of parenting style was uniquely associated with autonomy expectations. Monitoring behaviors did not contribute. Driving-specific variables explained 11% of the variance. Adolescents with more driving experience expected to obtain autonomy more quickly whereas adolescents who perceived more risk expected to obtain autonomy more slowly. Finally, the set of predictors accounted for 32% of the variance in adolescents’ legitimacy beliefs. Background variables contributed 8% of the variance. Boys reported weaker legitimacy beliefs than girls. Parenting styles contributed 12% of the variance in legitimacy beliefs. Adolescents reporting more autonomy support had stronger legitimacy beliefs as did adolescents tending to report more structure. Monitoring behaviors accounted for 4% of the variance but neither monitoring behavior was independently linked with legitimacy beliefs. Driving-specific variables explained 9% of the variance. Adolescents perceiving more risk reported stronger legitimacy beliefs.

4. Discussion The primary purpose of current study was to determine the extent to which driving-specific parenting and adolescents’ views of the legitimacy of driving-specific parenting reflect family backgrounds, the continuation of established patterns of parenting, and the anticipation of a new challenge for the adolescent. Although there was limited congruence between parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives, analyses based on parents’ reports and analyses based on adolescents’ reports consistently showed the same pattern of associations, although at times they differed in magnitude and statistical significance. Family background factors, established parenting styles and parenting practices, and driving-relevant experiences and expectations were fairly consistent predictors of driving-specific parenting and legitimacy beliefs. The strongest and most consistent unique predictors of parents’ and adolescents’ involvement attitudes and expected driving limits were parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of the risks faced by novice drivers. Although previous studies reported that mothers think that parents should be more involved, should impose more limits, and should delay driving autonomy more than fathers (Hartos

11

et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006), there was little evidence from prior studies that driving-specific parenting differs as a function of other family background characteristics. In the current study, family background characteristics accounted for a significant, but modest, portion of the variance in five of the seven outcome variables and accounted for a marginally significant portion of the variance in the other two outcomes. Consistent with previous studies, fathers expected to impose fewer limits and for a shorter time, than mothers. In contrast to previous studies, differences were found in the driving -specific parenting anticipated by boys and girls. Although parents felt that parents should be more involved in their sons’ driving than in their daughters’ driving, sons felt that parents should be less involved, expected fewer limits imposed for shorter periods, and viewed driving restrictions as less legitimate than daughters. Together the parent and adolescent sex differences suggest that fewer restrictions will be imposed and experienced by males than by females. Given that crash rates are significantly higher for male adolescents than female adolescents (e.g., Hanna et al., 2006), findings suggest that extra efforts may be needed to communicate the importance and positive impact of driving restrictions to fathers and parents of boys. The current study included a wider age range of participants at a single point early in the licensing process than have previous studies. The wide age range provided an opportunity to test age differences in parents’ autonomy expectations and adolescents’ expected limits prior to licensure. Although all adolescent participants were at the very beginning phase of the licensing process, parents expected to grant the older adolescent participants driving autonomy more quickly and the older adolescent participants expected fewer limits on their driving at the start. These age differences may have important implications in light of recent regulations in many U.S. states increasing the minimum age at licensure (Preusser and Tison, 2007). Parents may be offsetting some of the potential safety gains from such regulations by granting driving autonomy to their children more quickly when the adolescents obtain their licenses at slightly older ages. Interventions may be more effective for parents of younger adolescents (relative to the minimum driving age) as parents may be more inclined to impose restrictions, but interventions should also communicate that restrictions should be imposed to permit the adolescents’ to improve their driving skills, and that even older adolescents need time and experience to improve those skills. As anticipated, the extent to which parents feel that they should be involved and set limits, and the extent to which adolescents feel parents should be involved and set limits, appear to have roots in established parenting styles and practices. Parenting styles or monitoring behaviors accounted for unique variance all seven outcomes. Thus, although driving is a novel task for the adolescent, and facilitating the driving process is a novel challenge for the parents, the family does not approach the task empty-handed. Parents who have an established style of providing structure and autonomy support will likely integrate involvement in the driving process and the imposition of driving limits into their established parenting style. Likewise, parents who have been actively monitoring their adolescents’ leisure time whereabouts and activities, will likely actively monitor and limit their adolescents’ driving behavior. Findings contrast with those of Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami (2013) who did not find a link between autonomy granting and parents’ imposed limits. Compared to the Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-BenAmi (2013) sample, adolescents in the current study were younger and parents were reporting on anticipated limits rather than the limits imposed on adolescents further into the licensing process. Findings from the current study are in line with previous studies showing that authoritative parents and parents who monitoring driving behavior more closely have adolescents who drive more

12

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

Table 4 Summary of multivariate regression models predicting adolescent-reported attitudes, parenting expectations, and beliefs. Step

Predictors

Involvement attitudes R2

1.

2.

3.

4.

Total

Background variables Male adolescent Adolescent age Family income Single parent family Parenting styles Structure Autonomy support Monitoring behaviors Solicitation Rules Driving-specific variables Driving experience Risk perceptions

B (SE)

Expected limits B*

.06*

R2

B (SE)

Autonomy expectations B*

.05** −.31 (.10) −.02 (.07) −.05 (.04) −.16 (.12)

−.19** −.02 −.10 −.09

.19 (.09) .17 (.09)

.19* .15+

.09***

−.10 (.04) −.08 (.03) −.02 (.02) −.03 (.05)

−.14* −.19** −.10 −.04

−.03 .13

***

.04 .10

.06 (.04) .11 (.04)

.15 .26**

.28***

.41 (.12) −.05 (.07) .02 (.04) −.04 (.15)

.21*** −.04 −.02 .01

−.12 (.10) −.10 (.10)

−.10 −.08

−.02 (.11) −.11 (.12)

−.02 −.09

.35***

B*

−.22 (.06) .07 (.05) −.00 (.02) −.04 (.07)

−.24*** .12 −.03 −.04

.08 (.05) .16 (.05)

.14+ .25**

.07 (.05) .07 (.05)

.12 .11

.04**

***

.11 −.04 (.02) .23 (.04)

.08 .37***

B (SE)

.12***

***

.15 .06 (.04) .54 (.09)

R2 .08***

.01

***

.12

Legitimacy beliefs B*

.02* .02 (.03) .05 (.04)

.13*** −.03 (.10) .14 (.10)

B (SE)

.05**

.02

.01

R2

−.14** .38***

.09 .15 (.06) −.51 (.12)

.20***

−.03 (.02) .26 (.06)

.17** −.29***

−.07 .31***

.32***

R was calculated as the proportion reduction in residual variance with statistical significance tested using Satorra-Bentler chi-square difference tests for nested models estimated using robust maximum likelihood. + p < .10 two-tailed. * p < .05 two-tailed. ** p < .01 two-tailed. *** p < .001 two-tailed. 2

safely (Hartos et al., 2001; Ginsburg et al., 2009; Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2013). Recognizing that driving-specific parenting has its roots in established parenting styles and family interaction patterns has several implications for those seeking to make driving safer by intervening with parents. First, the results suggest that many parents will be actively involved and will set limits on driving behavior. Second, the results suggest that any universal parenting intervention or prevention program that encourages parents to provide more structure and autonomy support or that encourages parental monitoring will likely also enhance parental involvement and limits once the adolescents start driving. Third, the results suggest that interventions are likely to be most cost-effective and efficient when they target parents who are struggling to provide structure or autonomy support or to effectively monitor prior to the initiation of driving. Results clearly show that parents’ and adolescents’ perceptions of risk for novice drivers are the strongest and most consistent predictors of the outcomes. Together the two driving-specific variances accounted for unique variance in all seven outcomes. Risk perceptions, individually, also accounted for unique variance in all seven outcomes. Greater involvement, more limits, and slower driving autonomy are expected by parents and adolescents who view driving as more risky for novice drivers. Likewise, adolescents who view driving as more risky more strongly endorse the legitimacy of parental involvement and limits. These findings are consistent with previous studies showing that parents who perceive more risks feel that more limits should be imposed and should be in place for a longer period (Hartos et al., 2004a; Williams et al., 2006), but findings from the current study also show that the associations generalize to adolescents’ perceptions of risk as well. It is noteworthy that risk perceptions accounted for unique variance after controlling for family background factors, parenting styles, and parental monitoring behaviors, showing that risk perceptions, although correlated with earlier parenting, are strong independent contributors to parents’ and adolescents’ expectations for driving-specific parenting. These associations suggest that parents and adolescents who view driving as risky may be particularly receptive to policies and programs that enhance parental involvement and limit-setting. However, the converse is also true. Parents and adolescents who view driving as less risky may see little need

for parental involvement and limit-setting and may resist polices or programs that encourage it. Moreover, the independent prediction suggests that parents and adolescents perceiving greater risk may be receptive to more involvement and limits, even when parents did little monitoring and did not establish a structured and autonomy supportive style of interacting with their children. Public health researchers often consider parent agency (i.e., by asking “what can parents do to make driving safer for their children”) but can overlook the importance of adolescent agency. Focusing on predictors of adolescents’ legitimacy beliefs is an explicit acknowledgment of the importance of attending to adolescent agency. It is very important to consider how involved adolescents think parents have the right to be in the driving process. Legitimacy beliefs reflect the extent to which adolescents have internalized their parents’ values and expectations (Smetana, 2011). Strong legitimacy beliefs predict more compliance with parents’ rules and less undesirable behavior (Darling et al., 2008; Kuhn et al., 2013; Laird et al., 2010). Therefore, adolescents’ beliefs regarding the legitimacy of parental involvement and limit-setting are likely good predictors of adolescents’ compliance with parents’ limits and of adolescents’ internalization of parents’ expectations for safe driving practices. As with the driving-specific parenting variables, adolescents’ legitimacy beliefs were predicted by both established parenting behaviors and styles and by adolescents’ driving risk perceptions. It is likely that legitimacy beliefs will both mediate and moderate links between parenting and risky driving practices once the adolescents begin driving independently. Parents who have monitored and established a structured and autonomy-supportive parenting style are likely to be more involved and to set more limits than parents who failed to monitor or who enacted a more controlling or permissive parenting style, which should enhance the likelihood that the adolescents will view the involvement and limits as legitimate expressions of parental authority (Parkin and Kuczynski, 2012). As such, legitimacy beliefs should serve to mediate, or link, parenting with safer driving behavior. However, if parents, perhaps strongly motivated by their own risk perceptions, attempt to become more involved in the driving process, and to impose more limits on driving behavior than would be expected based on previous family interaction patterns (i.e., parents previously imposed few limits but do impose limits on driving), the adolescents are

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

likely to challenge the legitimacy of parents’ limits and are likely to avoid complying with the limits when non-compliance is possible (Parkin and Kuczynski, 2012). This scenario identifies a significant challenge faced by driving-focused parenting interventions that target parents who have been struggling to maintain structure and to monitor their adolescents–families are self-correcting systems that resist substantial changes (Dix, 1991). Interventions that target and monitor adolescents’ legitimacy beliefs may provide insight into an important mechanism while simultaneously enhancing the potential effectiveness of the intervention. Parents often view themselves as better parents than they are viewed by their children (Tein et al., 1994). Such a pattern can be seen in the mean-level differences between parents’ and adolescents’ reports of monitoring behaviors and parenting styles in the current study. It is noteworthy, however, that the magnitude of the mean-level differences for driving-specific parenting and risk perceptions is substantially larger than the mean-level differences in monitoring behaviors and parenting styles. This pattern replicates Sherman et al.’s (2004) results and shows that parents believe that parents should be significantly more involved than do adolescents and that parents are expecting to impose significantly more limits than the adolescents are expecting. Perhaps parents expect to impose more restrictions than adolescents expect to have imposed because parents view driving as significantly more risky than do their adolescents. However, the larger meanlevel differences also may be artifacts of measurement. Parents and adolescents are reporting their perspectives on shared experiences with monitoring behaviors and parenting styles whereas parents and adolescents are reporting their individual involvement attitudes and expectations for limits. Perhaps there will be greater convergence in perspectives once adolescents begin driving and the parents and adolescents have a common frame of reference. Nonetheless, results clearly and consistently show that even though individual differences in parents’ and adolescents’ expectations have similar roots, the parents and adolescents are expecting different degrees of involvement and limits when the adolescents start driving. Several previous studies of parents’ limits have distinguished between driving limits which are restrictions imposed on driving behavior (i.e., no speeding, seatbelt must be worn) and trip limits which are restrictions on when, or under what conditions, the adolescent is permitted to drive (e.g., Hartos et al., 2001, 2004a). The distinction between driving limits and trip limits is a useful conceptual distinction that helps to characterize the variety of limits that parents may impose on adolescent drivers. However, psychometric analyses of anticipated limits in the current study found that driving and trip limits did not load on separate factors. This means that parents who anticipate imposing more limits tend to anticipate imposing more limits of both types whereas parents who anticipate imposing fewer limits tend to anticipate imposing fewer limits of both types. Perhaps the distinction between driving limits and trip limits increases in salience once parents begin to impose, rather than anticipate imposing, limits. Strengths of the study include obtaining independent reports from parents and adolescents at a time when driving is a salient issue for both adolescents and parents, but before adolescents receive their learner’s permit. Fathers were included in the study but 73% of the parents were female, indicating that fathers’ perspectives were still underrepresented, and that associations based on parents’ reports were more heavily weighed by mothers. Greater attention to fathers’ perspectives and to the roles filled by fathers versus mothers in parenting novice drivers is needed. The primary limitation of the study is asking parents and adolescents to self-report on expected rather than experienced limits. Subsequent data collection waves will assess experienced limits and future analyses will examine the congruence between

13

expectations and experiences. An additional limitation is the limited overlap between parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives on most of the study variables. Although limited congruence between parents’ and adolescents’ reports on family interactions and dynamics is common (Tein et al., 1994), this discrepancy in perspective is a serious challenge for researchers. It remains unclear whether the discrepancies themselves are informative (see Laird and De Los Reyes, 2013) and whether associations among study variables should be primarily attributed to method variance (see Bank et al., 1990). Parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives were analyzed separately in the current study to determine whether substantive findings replicate across perspectives. In most cases, results were consistent across perspectives. Although this approach cannot rule out that findings within either perspective are driven primarily by method variance, this approach does help to reduce the possibility that implications derived from studying one informant (e.g., adolescents) are inconsistent or incompatible with implications derived from studying another informant (e.g., parents). Data regarding parent driving status were not collected so it was not possible to determine if parents who do not drive hold different attitudes or expectations for how they will parent novice drivers compared to parents who do drive. Finally, all analyses are cross-sectional and correlational which limits the ability to draw strong conclusions. Longitudinal data are being collected to better understand how parents’ and adolescents’ pre-driving expectations and experiences may influence driving-specific parenting once adolescents begin driving as well as how driving-specific parenting changes as adolescent drivers gain experience. Interventions to increase parents’ restrictions in the hopes of reducing risky driving behavior can be better informed by understanding why some parents feel that parents should be more involved in the driving process, why some parents impose more driving rules (and keep them in place for longer periods of time), and why some adolescents view driving-related parenting as an exercise of legitimate authority. Results demonstrated that parents’ and adolescents’ attitudes regarding parents’ involvement in the driving process and expectations for parents’ limits on driving can be predicted from family background factors, established patterns of parenting, and from anticipated risks for novice drivers. Acknowledgements I thank the Jefferson Parish Public School System, Victor Manning Driving School, the families who participated in this research, and the many students who assisted with the study. This research was supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation, but the Foundation had no direct involvement in the study design, data collection, or the writing of this report. References Bank, L., Dishion, T.J., Skinner, M., Patterson, G.R., 1990. Method variance in structural equation modeling: living with “glop”. In: Patterson, G.R. (Ed.), Depression and Aggression in Family Interaction. Advances in Family Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA, pp. 247–279. Beck, K.H., Hartos, J., Simons-Morton, B., 2002. Teen driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. Health Education & Behavior 29 (1), 73–84. Bianchi, A., Summala, H., 2004. The genetics of driving behavior: parents’ driving style predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36, 655–659. Blachman, D.R., Abrams, D., 2008. Behavioral and social science contributions to preventing teen motor crashes: systems integrative and interdisciplinary approaches. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (3 Suppl. 1), S285–S288. Bornstein, M.H. (Ed.), 2002. Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 3. Being and Becoming a Parent. , 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ. D’Angelo, L.J., Halpern-Felsher, B.L., Abraham, A., 2010. Adolescents and driving: a position paper of the society for adolescent health and medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health 47 (2), 212–214.

14

R.D. Laird / Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 5–14

Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Martínez, M.L., 2008. Individual differences in adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority and their own obligation to obey: a longitudinal investigation. Child Development 79 (4), 1103–1118. Dix, T., 1991. The affective organization of parenting: adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological Bulletin 110 (1), 3–25. Dornbusch, S.M., Carlsmith, J.M., Bushwall, S.J., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, H., Hastorf, A.H., Gorss, R.T., 1985. Single parents, extended households, and the control of adolescents. Child Development 56 (2), 326–341. Farkas, M.S., Grolnick, W.S., 2010. Examining the components and concomitants of parental structure in the academic domain. Motivation and Emotion 34 (3), 266–279. 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 and Prevention 33, 229–234. ˜ J.F., Kalicka, E.A., Winston, F.K., 2009. Ginsburg, K.R., Durbin, D.R., García-Espana, Associations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes. Pediatrics 124 (4), 1040–1051. Gottfried, A.W., Gottfried, A.E., Bathurst, K., Wright Buerin, D., Parramore, M.M., 2002. Socioeconomic status in children’s development and family environment: infancy through adolescence. In: Bornstein, M.H., Bradley, R.H. (Eds.), Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 189–208. Grolnick, W.S., 2003. The Psychology of Parental Control: How Well-meant Parenting Backfires. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Hanna, C.L., Taylor, D.M., Sheppard, M.A., Laflamme, L., 2006. Fatal crashes involving young unlicensed drivers in the U.S. Journal of Safety Research 37 (4), 385–393. Hartos, J.L., Beck, K.H., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2004a. Parents’ intended limits on adolescents approaching unsupervised driving. Journal of Adolescent Research 19 (5), 591–606. 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 (3), 352–367. Hartos, J.L., Eitel, P., Simons-Morton, B., 2001. Do parent-imposed delayed licensure and restricted driving reduce risky driving behaviors among newly licensed teens? Prevention Science 2 (2), 113–122. Hartos, J., Eitel, P., Simons-Morton, B., 2002. Parenting practices and adolescent risky driving: a three-month prospective study. Health Education & Behavior 29 (2), 194–206. Hartos, J.L., Shattuck, T., Simons-Morton, B.G., Beck, K.H., 2004b. An in-depth look at parent-imposed driving rules: their strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Safety Research 35 (5), 547–555. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2013. Fatality Facts 2011: Teenagers, Available at http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=Teenagers Accessed 29.03.13. Kuhn, E.S., Phan, J.M., Laird, R.D., 2013. Compliance with parents’ rules: betweenperson and within-person predictions. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9965-x. Keating, D.P., 2007. Understanding adolescent development: implications for driving safety. Journal of Safety Research 38 (2), 147–157. Lahatte, A., Le Pape, M.-C., 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 (3), 627–634.

Laird, R.D., Criss, M.M., Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., 2009. Developmental trajectories and antecedents of distal parental supervision. Journal of Early Adolescence 29, 258–284. Laird, R.D., De Los Reyes, A., 2013. Testing informant discrepancies as predictors of early adolescent psychopathology: why difference scores cannot tell you what you want to know and how polynomial regression may. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 41 (1), 1–14. Laird, R.D., Marrero, M.D., Sentse, M., 2010. Revisiting parental monitoring: evidence that parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 39 (12), 1431–1441. Lee Rodgers, J., Nicewander, W.A., 1988. Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. The American Statistician 42 (1), 59–66. McCartt, A.T., Shabanova, V.I., Leaf, W.A., 2003. Driving experience, crashes and traffic citations of teenage beginning drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35 (3), 311–320. Miller, G., Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Driving styles among young novice drivers – the contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 558–570. Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O., 2010. Mplus User’s Guide, 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA, Muthén & Muthén. Parkin, C.M., Kuczynski, L., 2012. Adolescent perspectives on rules and resistance within the parent–child relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research 27 (5), 632–658. Preusser, D.F., Tison, J., 2007. Gdl then and now. Journal of Safety Research 38 (2), 159–163. Racz, S.J., McMahon, R.J., 2011. The relationship between parental knowledge and monitoring and child and adolescent conduct problems: a 10-year update. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 14 (4), 377–398. Sherman, K., Lapidus, G., Gelven, E., Banco, L., 2004. New teen drivers and their parents: what they know and what they expect. American Journal of Health Behavior 28 (5), 387–396. Shope, J.T., 2010. Adolescent motor vehicle crash risk: what’s needed to understand and reduce the risk? Journal of Adolescent Health 46 (1), 1–2. Skinner, E., Johnson, S., Snyder, T., 2005. Six dimensions of parenting: a motivational model. Parenting-Science and Practice 5 (2), 175–235. Smetana, J.G., 2011. Adolescents, families and social development: how teens construct their worlds. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA. Stattin, H., Kerr, M., 2000. Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Development 71 (4), 1072–1085. 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 and 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 and Prevention 54, 1–14. Tein, J.-Y., Roosa, M.W., Michaels, M., 1994. Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56 (2), 341–355. Williams, A.F., Leaf, W.A., Simons-Morton, B.G., Hartos, J.L., 2006. Parents’ views of teen driving risks, the role of parents, and how they plan to manage the risks. Journal of Safety Research 37 (3), 221–226.