E

T

brfiewamOb

jtahuaMmwtd1

mipipeqmTabi

tudtTs

h0

Accident Analysis and Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

jo u r n al homepage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /aap

ditorial

he parental factor in adolescent reckless driving: The road ahead

Adolescence is characterized by experimentation with riskyehaviors, and risky driving is one of them. Such behavior rep-esents a serious threat to youngsters’ health, and may even beatal, with car crashes being the leading cause of injury and deathn this age group (Beck et al., 2005; Winston and Senserrick, 2006),specially for males (Shope and Bingham, 2008). While this is aell-known fact, an integrative explanation of the complex mech-

nisms underlying the adolescent tendency is still lacking. Such aodel is a prerequisite for the design of effective countermeasures.ne major issue that has to be taken into account is the role playedy parents in shaping teen driving behavior.

It is important to bear in mind that for teens, driving is notust a quick and easy way to get from place to place. Often it ishe danger and sensations associated with driving that make it sottractive and enjoyable at this age. Multiple factors come into playere, such as displaying mastery of a desired skill, emotional reg-lation of threats and moods, and coping with the social demandsnd challenges inherent in this period (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010c).oreover, though we tend to perceive risky driving as unreservedlyaladaptive, risk taking is also one way in which adolescents copeith a central developmental task: liberating themselves from

heir parents and asserting themselves as grown-ups and indepen-ent autonomous individuals (Baumrind, 1987; Shedler and Block,990).

Although adolescents in general exhibit a higher risk endorse-ent than their parents (e.g., Simons-Morton et al., 2011), empir-

cal evidence also show that the model of driving behavior parentsrovide is reflected in their offspring’s driving. In fact, parents’

nvolvement in traffic violations and car crashes has been shown toredict their children’s involvement in similar incidents (Fergusont al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2006). Moreover, studies using self-reportuestionnaires have found evidence for intergenerational trans-ission of driving styles (Bianchi and Summala, 2004; Miller and

aubman – Ben-Ari, 2010; Taubman – Ben-Ari et al., 2005), as wells driving norms and values (Lahatte and Le Pape, 2008), and studiesased on in-vehicle data recorders report parent–teen resemblance

n driving behavior (Prato et al., 2009, 2010).Significant associations have been found not only between the

wo generations’ driving styles, but also between parents’ habit-al driving modes and their teens’ attitudes toward accompaniedriving (ATAD; Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010b), which, in turn, affect

heir endorsement of driving style (Taubman – Ben-Ari, 2010a).hus, parental tendencies for anxious, risky, and angry drivingtyles were related to higher tension, avoidance, disapproval, and

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.011001-4575/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

anxiety in their children’s attitude toward the accompanied driv-ing period, while a higher parental tendency for a careful drivingstyle was related to lower negative ATADs among the adolescents.As the accompanied driving period may be critical in establishingsafer driving habits that will continue to be practiced once adoles-cents 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 pro-vided by the studies of Brookland et al. (2014), Ehsani et al. (2014),Scott-Parker et al. (2014), and Schmidt et al. (2014) in the currentissue. Brookland et al. (2014) found that adolescents’ crash involve-ment was related to parents’ crash involvement; Ehsani et al.(2014) established a correlation between the kinematic driving ofparent–teen pairs, which was most pronounced in the beginningof teens’ driving experience; Scott-Parker et al. (2014) show thatthe risky driving behavior of young male drivers was associatedwith the perceived riskiness of their fathers’ driving, and the sametended to be true for female drivers and their mothers; and Schmidtet al. (2014) report that parental modeling of aggressive driving,substance use driving, distracted driving, and moving violationswas predictive of youth risk in all domains of risky driving exam-ined in their study. Taken together, these investigations providefurther indications that an individual’s driving style may be shapedwithin the family of origin, and may be associated with the parents’driving styles and behaviors.

Despite the importance of this basic observation, our under-standing of the mechanism that might explain it is still incomplete.On the one hand, children model themselves on their parents inall aspects of life. Since teens are exposed to their parents’ driv-ing throughout their lives, it is reasonable to assume that theywill model their own driving behavior on their parents as well,as research has indeed found. On the other hand, adolescence isthe time when teens are trying to prove their individuality andthus behave in a differentiated mode from their parents, which isreflected in part in the fact that the associations between the gener-ations in respect to driving behaviors are far from complete. Thus,it is still necessary to gain a deeper understanding of parent–teendynamics and obtain a fuller picture of the parental factors con-tributing to teens’ driving behavior.

One possible explanation for the parental influence lies in thesocialization processes through which parents communicate their

standards of conduct. These include parental monitoring of adoles-cent behavior, the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship,and parent–adolescent communication (Kotchick et al., 2001).

2 is and

sianalfieApbd

srs(po2ewieain(mbafsmai2

csrsto(tebtl

cpiot(f(pbtlfi

Editorial / Accident Analys

The first of these, parental monitoring and control, has beenhown to be inversely associated with involvement in reckless driv-ng. When parents know what their adolescent children are doingnd who their friends are, impose limits on teenage passengers andight driving, supervise their teen’s driving, and restrict access to

car, the adolescents are more likely to take fewer risks, reportess speeding and more seat belt use, and be involved in fewer traf-c violations (Beck et al., 2001; Bingham and Shope, 2004; Grabert al., 2006; Hartos et al., 2000; Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-mi, 2013). The study by Brookland et al. (2014) in the current issuerovides further evidence of the validity of this avenue of researchy indicating that the children of parents who implement fewerriving rules exhibit a lower compliance with GDL conditions.

The second factor, the way adolescents perceive their relation-hip with their parents, is another important predictor of teens’isk-taking behavior. Research has shown that the perception ofupport from parents is related to lower risk taking by childrenParker and Benson, 2004), and that emotional responsiveness andsychological autonomy-granting by parents promote the devel-pment of a responsible, competent adolescent (Nijhof and Engles,007; Steinberg, 2001). Moreover, teens with authoritative par-nts reported half the crash risk in the preceding year than thoseith uninvolved parents (Ginsburg et al., 2009). When the Fam-

ly Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein et al., 1983) was used toxamine teens’ perceptions of problem solving, communication,ffective reaction, affective involvement, and general functioningn the family, these dimensions were found to be significantly andegatively related to their willingness to take risks while drivingTaubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013; study 3). Further-

ore, the family’s coherence and adaptability (Olson, 1986) haveoth been negatively related to endorsement of the reckless andngry driving styles, and positively associated with a preferenceor careful driving (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2013;tudy 4). These findings suggest that positive family processes doore than simply discourage dangerous driving behaviors among

dolescents; they may also help develop positive assets or strengthsn their youngsters that work to prevent such behaviors (Chen et al.,008).

The studies of Laird (2014) and of Mirman et al. (2014) in theurrent issue provide insight into how the parent–teen relation-hip can positively impact adolescent driving behavior. Laird (2014)eports that parents who have an established style of providingtructure and autonomy support to their children are more likelyo integrate involvement in the driving process and the impositionf driving limits into their routine parenting style. Mirman et al.2014) show the importance of support provided by parents andeens to each other in the process of driving practice, so that par-nts in mutually supportive dyads reported stronger intentions toe engaged in their teens’ practice driving during the permit phasehan those in dyads where both members reported receiving a lowevel of support.

Research has also found the third factor, parent–adolescentommunication, to be related to adolescent driving, with poorarent–child communication associated with risky driving behav-

or (Turner et al., 1993; Wills et al., 1996), and higher frequencyf parent–teen communication about safe driving (as reported byeens) associated with teens’ positive attitudes toward safe drivingYang et al., 2013). While these studies indicate the significance ofamily communication, it is important to note that Goodwin et al.2006) found that although there was general agreement betweenarents and teens as to whether certain things were said or doney the parents concerning the youngsters’ driving, the interpre-

ations of these acts by the two generations barely exceeded theevel of agreement that would occur by chance. Another studyound only modest agreement between parents and their teensn respect to parentally imposed restrictions on mobile phone

Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4

use while driving (Foss, 2007). Foss alludes to a basic communi-cation gap between parents and their teenage offspring, so thatthe message parents believe they are conveying by their words oractions and the message perceived by the adolescents may not beone and the same. Such communication problems are of consid-erable concern, as Beck et al. (2005) found that greater agreementregarding restricted driving conditions was significantly associatedwith decreased driving risk among newly licensed young drivers.New evidence reported by Goodwin et al. (2014) in the current issueindicates that when parents are accompanying their offspring inthe car, the most common type of comment they make is instruc-tion about vehicle handling or operation, followed by pointing outsomething about the driving environment, negative remarks aboutthe teen’s driving, and helping the driver navigate. Other poten-tially helpful types of instruction, including explanations or insightsrelating to higher-order skills (e.g., hazard anticipation and detec-tion), were less frequent. Such information, obtained from directobservation, enhances our awareness of the gap between profes-sionals’ views of effective parental guidance and parents’ behaviorin practice.

The concept of Family Climate for Road Safety (FCRS) may helpus to take a step forward in understanding the impact of theparent–teen relationship on adolescent driving by providing anintegrative lens through which to view the complex issues involved.FCRS refers to the values, perceptions, priorities, and practicesof parents and the family in regard to safe driving, as perceivedby young drivers (Taubman – Ben-Ari and Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012,2013). It consists of seven dimensions: (1) Modeling, i.e., the modelthat parents provide to their children by their own modes of drivingand their degree of obedience to traffic regulations; (2) Feedback,relating to parents’ positive and encouraging comments to theiroffspring in regard to driving safely, and their ability to praise theirchildren for safe and considerate driving; (3) Communication, a ref-erence to open and direct communication between parents andadolescents in respect to driving behavior and risk taking, suchas parents’ guidance on how to anticipate potential hazards onthe road and inclusion of the young driver in framing the fam-ily “contract” regarding their driving; (4) Monitoring, or parentalobservation and supervision of their youngsters’ driving, includingmaking sure they do not drive recklessly and having them informthe parents of where they are taking the car, who is going withthem, and when they intend to be home; (5) Commitment to safety,a reflection of parents’ authentic commitment to road safety, obey-ing traffic laws, and considerate driving, including the time theyare willing to invest in safety education; (6) Messages, a measureof parents’ clear verbal safety messages to young drivers that areunderstood by their children; and (7) Limits, i.e., the extent to whichparents set systematic and clear-cut boundaries on adolescents’driving behavior, discipline them for traffic violations, and makeknown the restrictions that will be imposed if they do not followthese rules.

Studies have found that young drivers who perceive theirparents to be good role models, to provide encouraging andempowering feedback for safe driving, to enable open communi-cation, to convey clear messages regarding safe driving, to monitortheir driving, and to set well-defined limits on breaking traffic laws,report taking risks less frequently, being more personally commit-ted to safety, and driving more carefully and in a less aggressiveand reckless manner. On the other hand, teens who perceive theirparents to be uncommitted to safety report driving more recklesslyand being less committed to safety themselves (Taubman – Ben-Ariand Katz – Ben-Ami, 2012, 2013).

In addition to increasing our understanding of the nature of theparental influence on teen driving, these findings call attention to acrucial task for professionals: the need to identify different kinds offamilies and the particular dynamics within them during the course

is and

omtwen

psmeoorT(adsct2

bfasttaewtb

ai(sheiyAaifstyicuGwL

teett(nTe

Editorial / Accident Analys

f a teen’s transition to driving. Being able to describe families in aore precise manner may help to design more effective interven-

ions that are tailored to the needs of different groups. To do that,e have to refrain from talking about parents or families in gen-

ral, and concentrate efforts on identifying discrete processes in aumber of different family types.

Meanwhile, a variety of interventions aimed at encouragingarents’ involvement, supervision, and management have beenuggested and evaluated. Most programs share three basic ele-ents – education, discussion, and practice of a new skill (Burrus

t al., 2012) – and have been shown to have a positive effectn adolescents’ health outcomes, thus indicating the importancef including parents in efforts to reduce teens’ engagement inisky driving from a different perspective (Williams et al., 2012).he Checkpoint Program, based on Protection Motivation theoryRogers, 1983), was designed to encourage parents of teens whore beginning to drive independently to limit the adolescents’riving under high-risk conditions. Following implementation ineveral settings, the program was found to increase parent–teenommunication about driving and limit setting, and to reduceraffic violations (Simons-Morton et al., 2008; Zakrajsek et al.,013).

Another program that targets parents is Steering Teens Safe,ased on Bandura’s (Bandura, 1986) social cognitive theory andamily communication theory (Ramirez et al., 2012). Here, parentsre instructed in how to be a role model by demonstrating drivingkills and discussing driving issues with their teens. The programeaches parents strategies drawn from motivational interviewingechniques that are meant to improve parent–teen communicationbout safe driving, special driving situations, and rural roads. Anvaluation study (Ramirez et al., 2012) found that the interventionas accepted by the participating parents and encouraged them to

alk to their teens about driving and to demonstrate safe drivingehavior.

An Israeli program called Green Light for Life (GLL) is directedt parent–teen dyads. Aimed at improving the quantity and qual-ty of adolescents’ driving during the accompanied driving periodADP), it begins with a face-to-face meeting between a GLL repre-entative and the young driver and his or her parents in the familyome as soon as possible after the teen passes the on-road test andnters the ADP. The meeting deals with fundamental issues, includ-ng: explaining the goals and importance of the ADP; enabling theoung driver and the parents to voice their expectations from theDP in an attempt to bridge the gap between them; framing angreement as to the rules and language to be used to manage then-vehicle dynamics during accompanied trips; encouraging theamily to take as many accompanied trips as possible, and to doo in a variety of driving conditions; and encouraging the parentso utilize their experience and hazard perception skills to help theoung driver predict and perceive conditions that could developnto dangerous situations. In addition, the families are given a kitontaining multimedia guidance materials. Two evaluation studiessing self-report measures and objective crash data indicated thatLL participants were involved in fewer traffic crashes than thoseho did not participate in the program (Taubman – Ben-Ari and

otan, 2011; Toledo et al., 2012).Technology can also assist parents in monitoring and shaping

he driving behavior of their teens. One program that employedvent-triggered video feedback and parental mentoring during thearly period of independent driving led to a significant decrease ineens’ safety-relevant events, with the riskiest drivers benefitinghe most (Carney et al., 2010; McGehee et al., 2007). Farah et al.

2014) in the current issue, continue the effort to make use of tech-ology to help parents enhance the safety of their teen drivers.he authors utilized in-vehicle data recorders (IVDR), which recordvents of extreme g-forces in the vehicle, to document and

Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4 3

provide feedback on the driving behavior of members of the family.In one of the four study groups, the parents also received specialtraining. It was found that young male drivers exposed to the inter-vention that included parental training recorded significantly lowerevents rates during the first months of independent driving thanthe control group, which received neither feedback nor parentaleducation.

These programs, and others like them, clearly demon-strate the important role parents play in improving the safetyof young drivers. They also underline the essential qualitiesneeded for parents to achieve this goal: the ability to pro-vide feedback, to engage in effective communication, to exhibitmentoring skills, to guide and empower young drivers, and, ofcourse, to serve consistently as positive models for safe driv-ing.

This special issue, dedicated to the role parents play in theirchildren’s driving habits, brings together articles from the UnitedStates, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. They join pre-vious research in demonstrating the positive impact that goodfamily relations, benevolent parental involvement, open, sup-portive, and sensitive communication, and especially modelingcan have on young drivers’ behavior on the roads. Perhaps evenmore importantly, they highlight the commonality of interestsand understandings of researchers from around the world in whatappears to be a virtually universal phenomenon. Interestingly,the evidence comes from investigations using different method-ologies, and includes naturalistic studies and those based onthe self-reports of adolescents and of parents and young driversalike.

As this issue indicates, progress has been made in understand-ing the role of parents in teen driving. However, a number ofpoints are still controversial and certain questions remain to beanswered. Some relate to methodology: Should research examineparent–teen pairs or are there insights to be gained from look-ing at only one member of this dyad? Can we rely on self-reportstudies or should we only relate to observational or behavioraldata? Or perhaps there is a best-practice combination betweenthem that should be employed? Is the description of the phe-nomenon enough or should we delve deeper in an attempt toexplain it? Can a set of findings in one culture inform other cul-tures as well? Other questions relate to content, such as the roleof parents’ personalities, the characteristics of pairs of parents(e.g., when the father and mother in the same family unit displaydisparate parenting styles and/or driving behaviors), the impactof different types of family dynamics, and the weight of adoles-cents’ desire to differentiate themselves from their parents, to namebut a few. The answers are undoubtedly more complicated thanthe questions. To gain a full understanding that will enable thedesign of countermeasures which will effectively lower existingteen drivers’ crash rates we must take a fresh look at the issue,make use of all possible research options and methodologies, andundertake analyses to differentiate groups and identify develop-mental trajectories. In addition, cross-cultural comparisons willmake it possible to implement intervention solutions in differentsettings.

Finally, notably missing from the literature is a sound andempirically grounded theory that affords a holistic view ofyoung drivers in general, and the parental role in their driv-ing behavior in particular. Such a theory would enable thedifferentiation of types of drivers and families and their par-ticular needs, and provide a basis on which to customizeinterventions culturally and sub-culturally and to evaluate their

effectiveness. We have come a long way in understandingthe parental role in teen driving, but many challenges arestill ahead. Some of them are being explored at this verymoment.

4 is and

R

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

E

E

F

F

F

G

G

G

G

H

K

L

L

M

M

M

N

O

P

∗ Tel.: +972 3 5318066; fax: +972 3 7384042.

Editorial / Accident Analys

eferences

andura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social CognitiveTheory. Prentice Hall Series in Social Learning Theory, Prentice Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.

aumrind, D., 1987. A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in con-temporary 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.

eck, K.H., Hartos, J.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2005. Parent–teen disagreement ofparent-imposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: isdiscordance related to risky teen driving? Prevention Science 6, 177–185.

eck, K.H., Shattuck, T., Raleigh, R., 2001. Parental predictors of teen driving risk.American Journal of Health Behavior 25, 10–20.

ianchi, A., Summala, H., 2004. The genetics of driving behavior: parents’ drivingstyle predicts their children’s driving style. Accident Analysis & Prevention 36,655–659.

ingham, C., Shope, J.T., 2004. Adolescent developmental antecedents of risky driv-ing among young adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65, 84–94.

rookland, R., Begg, D., Langley, J., Ameratunga, S., 2014. Parental influence on ado-lescent compliance with graduated driver licensing conditions and crashes asa restricted licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis &Prevention 69, 30–39.

urrus, B., Leeks, K.D., Sipe, T.A., Dolina, S., Soler, R., Elder, R., et al., 2012. Person-to-person interventions targeted to parents and other care givers to improveadolescent health: a community guide systematic review. American Journal ofPreventive Medicine 42, 316–326.

arney, C., McGehee, D.V., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., Raby, M., 2010. Using an event trig-gered video intervention system to expand the supervised learning of newlylicensed adolescent drivers. American Journal of Public Health 100, 1101–1106.

hen, M., Grube, J.W., Nygaard, P., Miller, B.A., 2008. Identifying social mechanismsfor the prevention of adolescent drinking and driving. Accident Analysis & Pre-vention 40, 576–585.

hsani, J., Simons-Morton, B., Albert, P.S., Klauer, S.G., 2014. The association betweenkinematic risky driving among parents and their teenage children: moderationby shared personality characteristics. Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 56–61.

pstein, N.B., Baldwin, L.M., Bishop, D.S., 1983. The McMaster family assessmentdevice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 9, 171–180.

arah, H., Musicant, O., Shimshoni, Y., Toledo, T., Grimberg, E., Omer, H., Lotan, T.,2014. Can providing feedback on driving behavior and training on parentalvigilant care affect male teen drivers and their parents? Accident Analysis &Prevention 69, 62–70.

erguson, 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.

oss, R.D., 2007. Improving graduated driver licensing systems: a conceptualapproach and its implications. Journal of Safety Research 38, 185–192.

insburg, K.R., Durbin, D.R., García-Espana, F., Kalicka, E.A., Winston, F.K., 2009. Asso-ciations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors andattitudes. Pediatrics 124, 1040–1051.

oodwin, A.H., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., Harrell, S., 2014. Parent comments andinstruction during the first four months of supervised driving: an opportunitymissed? Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 15–22.

oodwin, A.H., Walter, M.W., Foss, R.D., Margolis, L.H., 2006. Parental supervisionof teenage drivers in a graduated licensing system. Traffic Injury Prevention 7,224–231.

raber, J.A., Nichols, T., Lynne, S.D., Brooks-Gunn, J., Botvin, G.J., 2006. A longitudinalexamination of family, friend, and media influences on competent versus prob-lem behaviors among urban minority youth. Applied Developmental Science 10,75–85.

artos, 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.

otchick, B.A., Shaffer, A., Forehand, R., Miller, K.S., 2001. Adolescent sexual riskbehavior: a multi-system perspective. Clinical Psychology Review 21, 493–519.

ahatte, A., Le Pape, M., 2008. Is the way young people drive a reflection of the waytheir parents drive? An econometric study of the relation between parental riskand their children’s risk. Risk Analysis 28, 627–634.

aird, R., 2014. Parenting adolescent drivers is both a continuation of parentingfrom earlier periods and an anticipation of a new challenge. Accident Analysis& Prevention 69, 5–14.

cGehee, D.V., Raby, M., Carney, C., Lee, J.D., Reyes, M.L., 2007. Extending parentalmentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen drivers.Journal of Safety Research 38, 215–227.

iller, G., Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010. Driving styles among young novice drivers:the contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. AccidentAnalysis & Prevention 42, 558–570.

irman, J.H., Curry, A.E., Fisher-Thiel, M.C., Durbin, D.R., 2014. It takes two: a briefreport examining mutual support between parents and teens learning to drive.Accident Analysis & Prevention 69, 23–29.

ijhof, K.S., Engles, R.C.M.E., 2007. Parenting style, coping strategies, and the expres-sion of homesickness. Journal of Adolescence 30, 709–720.

lson, D.H., 1986. Circumplex model VII: validation studies and FACES. Family Pro-cess 25, 337–351.

arker, J.S., Benson, M.J., 2004. Parent–adolescent relations and adolescent function-ing: self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence 39, 519–530.

Prevention 69 (2014) 1–4

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 behaviorof 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 delivera new parent-based teen driving intervention to their teens. Health Educationand Behavior 40, 426–434.

Rogers, R.W., 1983. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and atti-tude 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 assessedparent factors to four domains of youth risky driving. Accident Analysis & Pre-vention 69, 40–50.

Scott-Parker, B., Watson, B., King, M.J., Hyde, M.K., 2014. Young novice drivers andthe 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 longitu-dinal inquiry. American Psychologist 45, 612–630.

Shope, J.T., Bingham, C.R., 2008. Teen driving: motor–vehicle crashes and factorsthat contribute. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, 261–271.

Simons-Morton, B.G., Ouimet, M.C., Catalano, R.F., 2008. Parenting and the youngdriver 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 noviceadolescent drivers and their parents. American Journal of Public Health 101,2362–2367.

Steinberg, L., 2001. We know some things: parent–adolescent relationships in ret-rospect and in prospect. Journal of Research in Adolescence 11, 1–19.

Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010a. Young drivers’ attitudes toward accompanied driv-ing: a new multidimensional measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42,1009–1017.

Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., 2010b. Attitudes toward accompanied driving: the viewsof 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 parentalfactor 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 climatefor road safety and aspects of the social environment to the reported drivingbehavior of young drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 47, 1–10.

Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Katz – Ben-Ami, L., 2013. Family climate for road safety: anew concept and measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 54, 1–14.

Taubman – Ben-Ari, O., Lotan, T., 2011. The contribution of a novel interventionto 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 tochildren—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 pro-gram to enhance young drivers’ safety in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention45, 705–710.

Turner, R.A., Irwin Jr., C.E., Tschann, J.M., Millstein, S.G., 1993. Autonomy, related-ness, and early initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence. HealthPsychology 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 ofAbnormal Psychology 105, 166–180.

Wilson, R.J., Meckle, W., Wiggins, S., Cooper, P.J., 2006. Young driver risk in relationto parents’ retrospective driving record. Journal of Safety Research 37, 325–332.

Winston, F.K., Senserrick, T.M., 2006. Competent independent driving as an arche-typal 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. Fam-ily 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 AdolescentHealth 53, 27–33.

Orit Taubman – Ben-Ari ∗

Bar Ilan University, The Louis and Gabi WeisfeldSchool of Social Work, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel

E-mail address: taubman@biu.ac.il

Available online 25 February 2014