Can I Take the Car? - SAGE Journals - Sage Publications

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / May 2000 Hartos et al. / RELATIONS AMONG PARENTING PRACTICES

Can I Take the Car? Relations Among Parenting Practices and Adolescent Problem-Driving Practices Jessica L. Hartos National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development

Patricia Eitel Menninger Foundation

Denise L. Haynie Bruce G. Simons-Morton National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development The goal of this study was to examine relations among problem-driving practices and parenting practices. Three hundred adolescents licensed 2 years or less were interviewed about driving behaviors, parenting practices, and orientations toward deviance. Factors significantly related to risky driving behaviors, traffic violations, and motor vehicle crashes included lower levels of parental monitoring and control, and lenient parental restrictions on driving (i.e., friends as passengers and driving curfews). Parental monitoring was among the subset of variables most useful in predicting risky driving behaviors. Violations were 4 times more likely with lenient restrictions related to frequency of friends as passengers and 2 times more likely with low parental control. Crashes were 7 times more likely with lenient restrictions related to frequency of friends as passengers. Overall, the findings suggest that adolescent problem driving is related to parenting practices.

As adolescents age, they gain more autonomy and independence, and one of the most important and valued privileges granted to older adolescents is driving. However, not all adolescents possess the level of responsibility or skill required for safe driving. Motor vehicle crashes are the major cause of death and disability among adolescents aged 16 through 20, resulting in more than 5,000 deaths annually (Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention & Committee on Adolescence, 1996; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1994). Crash rates among 16- to 19-year-old adolescents are higher Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, May 2000 352-367 © 2000 Sage Publications, Inc. 352

Hartos et al. / RELATIONS AMONG PARENTING PRACTICES

353

than those of any other age group (Doherty, Andrey, & MacGregor, 1998; Jonah, 1986; Ulmer, Williams, & Preusser, 1997; Williams, 1985). Moreover, adolescents are more likely to be at fault in crashes when compared to more experienced drivers (Alexander, Kallail, Burdsal, & Ege, 1990; Jonah, 1986; Ulmer et al., 1997). Two factors that contribute to high crash rates among adolescents include age-related driving inexperience and adolescents’ propensity for risk-taking behaviors (Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention & Committee on Adolescence, 1996; Jonah, 1986, 1990; Young, 1993). As novice drivers, adolescents lack the experience and ability necessary to detect and respond to hazards while controlling their vehicle and its speed. In addition, when compared to older drivers, adolescent drivers report more risk-taking behaviors such as speeding, following too closely, rapid accelerations, weaving in between other vehicles, and other aggressive maneuvers that heighten the likelihood of traffic violations and crashes (Jonah, 1990; Preusser, 1988). Other factors related to adolescents’ problem-driving practices include social and personality influences. Driving at night, on the weekends, and with friends as passengers increases the likelihood of risky driving behavior, traffic violations, and motor vehicle crashes (Doherty et al., 1998; Farrow, 1987; Ulmer et al., 1997; Williams, 1985; Williams & Preusser, 1997). Other research suggests that adolescents’ problem driving is part of adolescent problem behavior syndrome (Jessor & Jessor, 1977), as risky driving and crashes are related to sensation-seeking behavior (Arnett, 1992, 1996; Arnett, Offer, & Fine, 1997; Trimpop & Kirkcaldy, 1997; Vavrik, 1997; Yu & Williford, 1993), tolerance of social deviance, and having problem-behavior friends (Donovan, 1993; Jessor, Turbin, & Costa, 1997; Lawton, Parker, Stradling, & Manstead, 1997; West & Hall, 1997). One influence on adolescent driving that has not been examined thoroughly is parenting. Much research is devoted to the benefits of authoritative parenting on adolescent development (e.g., Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). This parenting style is characterized by responsiveness (the extent to which a parent responds to a child’s needs in an accepting and supportive manner) and demandingness (the extent to which a parent expects and demands responsible behavior from a child). Demanding parents allow adolescents to exercise their autonomy and self-reliance within structured standards, limits, and guidelines for appropriate behavior. Thus, parenting practices such as monitoring (i.e., knowing where adolescents are and what they are doing), control (i.e., having rules and expectations about adolescents’behaviors), and restrictions on driving could have an impact on adolescents’ responsible driving.

354

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH / May 2000

Parental monitoring and control have been found to be inversely associated with other adolescent problem behaviors such as substance use and deviant behavior (Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Reid & Patterson, 1989; Smith & Krohn, 1995; Steinberg, 1987; Stice & Barrera, 1995; Stice, Barrera, & Chassin, 1993). Furthermore, these problem behaviors are shown to be related to risky driving behaviors (Donovan, 1993; Jessor, 1987; Vingilis & Adlaf, 1990). In addition, parents can restrict adolescent driving privileges. They are involved in their adolescents’ driving from the beginning, teaching them to drive and governing their access to vehicles (Preusser, Williams, & Lund, 1985). Adolescents also report that parents have driving rules such as do not drink and drive, tell parents where you are going and with whom, and be home at a certain time. The little research addressing parenting and adolescents’ driving suggests that drinking and driving is associated with low levels of parental awareness of adolescent drinking (Beck & Lockhart, 1992) and having few parental restrictions on driving (Williams, Lund, & Preusser, 1986). Therefore, parenting practices such as monitoring, control, and restrictions on driving may be protective against adolescent problem-driving practices during the time when young drivers are developing their driving behaviors. Given the high incidence of adolescent problem-driving practices and lack of research investigating adolescent driving and parenting practices, the first purpose of this study was to examine the relations among parenting practices and adolescent rates of risky driving behaviors, traffic violations, and motor vehicle crashes. The second was to determine the impact of parental restrictions related to driving, parental monitoring, and parental control on adolescent driving practices in relation to adolescent orientations toward deviance.

METHOD Participants Data were gathered from 300 adolescents who were licensed 2 years or less. Participants were recruited from several high schools in the greater Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Demographic data indicate that 54% of participants were female and 46% male; 32% were 16 years old, 56% were 17, and 12% were 18. Most adolescents (86%) were Caucasian. Although time of licensure varied from 1 to 24 months, 65% of adolescents reported being licensed for less than 1 year. Most adolescents (86%) reported regular


355

access to a car. Approximately 93% of the adolescents lived with their biological mother and 81% with their biological father. About 75% of parents had some college training or higher education. Procedures Juniors and seniors were asked to participate in a telephone survey concerning driving behaviors and parent-adolescent relationships and were told that in return for their participation, they would receive a gift certificate to a local music store and their name would be put in a drawing for a $100 gift certificate to a local mall. Participation was voluntary and parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained according to procedures approved by the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Institutional Review Board. During the interviews, research assistants assured adolescents that their responses were confidential. Interviews took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Instruments Risky driving behaviors were assessed using questions adapted from Donovan (1993). Adolescents reported the number of times that they drove in the past 3 weeks and how often they performed each of 22 risky driving behaviors. Sample items include “exceed the speed limit in residential or school zones,” “tailgate or follow too closely,” and “go through an intersection when the light was red or just turning red.” The Cronbach coefficient alpha for responses on these items was .87. Traffic violations and motor vehicle crashes were measured by selfreport. Adolescents reported the number of times they had been stopped by law enforcement officials and for which reasons. Only moving violations were used in the analyses for traffic violations. Adolescents also reported the number of crashes in which they had been involved since they began driving. Parental restrictions related to driving were evaluated using four questions. Adolescents were asked how often their parents allowed friends as passengers in the car on a 4-point scale from anytime to never, and how many friends on a 5-point scale from as many as I want to only one. Adolescents also reported their driving curfews for weekdays and weekends on a 7-point scale from as late as I choose to by 9 p.m. or earlier. Higher scores reflect stricter parental restrictions. Parental monitoring was measured using questions adapted from Heatherington et al. (1992) and adding questions specific to driving. Adolescents

356


answered 10 questions about how much their parents knew about their daily activities on a 3-point scale from almost nothing to a lot. Sample items include “your activities (sports, clubs, hobbies),” “your school life, like who your teachers are and if you are having any problems with homework or grades,” and “where you go in the car.” Higher scores reflect higher levels of parental monitoring. The alpha for adolescents’ responses was .76. Parental control was assessed by questions adapted from work on parenting styles (Barber, 1997; Heatherington et al., 1992; Lamborn et al., 1991) and questions related to driving. Adolescents responded to seven questions concerning parents’ restraint and direction of adolescents’ behaviors on a 4-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Sample questions include “believes in having rules and sticking to them,” “checks up to see whether I have done what she/he told me to do,” and “expects me to drive carefully.” Higher scores reflect higher levels of parental control. The alpha for adolescents’ responses for parental control was .67. Deviance acceptance was measured using items taken from SimonsMorton et al. (1999) and adding questions related to deviant driving behaviors. Adolescents were asked if it was “OK” for adolescents to engage in 11 risky behaviors (no, maybe, and yes). Sample behaviors include “drink alcohol (beer, wine, liquor),” “lie to their parents about where they were or who they were with,” and “exceed the speed limit regularly.” Higher scores reflect higher levels of deviance acceptance. The alpha for the adolescents’ responses was .78. Problem-behavior friends were assessed using items adapted from Simons-Morton et al. (1999) and questions related to driving behaviors. Adolescents were asked to indicate how many of their closest friends (0 to 5) engage in any of 14 risky behaviors. Sample behaviors include “talk or act disrespectfully to teachers,” “shoplift or take things that don’t belong to them,” and “drive in a way to show off to others.” Higher scores reflect having more friends who display problem behaviors. The alpha for adolescents’ responses was .81. Sensation seeking and self-control were measured using items adapted from Cloninger (1987) and the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger, 1997). Adolescents were asked “if they were the kind of person who” did any of 18 sensation-seeking or self-controlled behaviors on a 4-point response scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Sample questions include “I often try new things just for fun or thrills” and “I like to think about things for a long time before I make a decision.” Higher scores reflect higher levels of sensation seeking and self-control.


357

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES Missing values for scale items for independent variables were replaced by using the average of the scores for the remainder of the scale (Kessler, Little, & Groves, 1995). Scores for risky driving behaviors were created by adding the number of risky driving behaviors reported across the 22 risky-drivingbehavior items and dividing this total by the number of driving events reported by the adolescent within the past 3 weeks. Scores for parental involvement, parental monitoring, deviance acceptance, and deviant peers were generated by adding the scores for the items and dividing by the total number of items for that scale. Sensation seeking and self-control were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis because they are related constructs. The 18 questions were entered into principal components analysis with varimax rotation and forced into two factors. Six questions with factor loadings between .57 and .78 emerged as the Self-Control factor and seven questions with loadings between .62 and .71 emerged as the factor Sensation Seeking. The alphas for adolescents’ reports were .77 for Self-Control and .82 for Sensation Seeking. Gender and time of licensure were included in all analyses. Given the predominantly White sample, analyses were not conducted by ethnicity.

RESULTS Risky Driving Behaviors Descriptive statistics for variables are noted in Table 1. Adolescents reported between 0 and 11 risky behaviors per driving event, with an average of more than 2 per driving event. The results of t tests indicated that males reported more risky driving behaviors than did females, t = 2.25, p < .05, but risky driving behaviors did not differ by time of licensure. The average time of licensure was about 10 months. As shown in Table 1, the means for restriction of the frequency of friends as passengers fall between responses 1 (anytime) and 2 (most of the times) and those for the number of friends fall between responses 1 (as many as I want) and 2 (four friends). Thus, adolescents were allowed, on average, to have four or more friends in the car most any time. The mean for weekday driving curfews was close to response 5 (11 p.m.), and the mean for weekend driving curfews was between responses 3 (1 a.m.) and 4 (2 a.m.). In addition, adolescents reported moderately high levels of parental monitoring and control, relatively low lev-

358

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1. Risky driving behaviors 2. Restrict frequency of friends 3. Restrict number of friends 4. Weekday driving curfew 5. Weekend driving curfew 6. Parental monitoring 7. Parental control 8. Deviance acceptance 9. Problem-behavior friends 10. Sensation seeking 11. Self-control

Variable 2.21 1.37 1.90 5.19 3.37 2.65 3.33 1.35 1.45 2.62 2.79

X 1.69 .68 1.20 1.64 1.28 .30 .43 .31 .72 .62 .59

SD

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

— –.17** — –.15* .39*** — –.08 .09 .18** — –.25*** .30*** .28*** .54*** — –.40*** .18** .15* .15** .24*** — –.38*** .22*** .23*** .22*** .26*** .51*** — .56*** –.20*** –.16** –.10 –.22*** –.39*** –.42*** — .54*** –.20*** –.11 –.10 –.23*** –.39*** –.36*** .67*** — .38*** –.17*** –.12* –.04 –.15** –.33*** –.24*** .47*** .40*** — –.41*** .10 .05 .02 .01 .21*** .20*** –.41*** –.40*** –.53***

1

TABLE 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Risky Driving Behaviors and Independent Variables


359

els of deviance acceptance and problem-behavior friends, and moderate levels of sensation seeking and self-control. When compared to females, males reported later weekday (t = 2.45, p < .05) and weekend driving curfews (t = 3.92, p < .001) and lower levels of parental monitoring (t = 3.99, p < .001), parental control (t = 2.76, p < .01), and self-control (t = 2.11, p < .05). Males also reported higher levels of deviance acceptance (t = 3.65, p < .001), problem-behavior friends (t = 3.36, p < .001), and sensation seeking (t = 6.63, p < .001) than did females. Only frequency of friends as passengers (t = 2.68, p < .01) and weekday (t = 2.56, p < .05) and weekend driving curfews (t = 4.41, p < .001) differed significantly by time of licensure. Those adolescents licensed 1 year or longer reported fewer restrictions in these areas than did those licensed less than 1 year. Table 1 also shows the correlations among risky driving behaviors and independent variables. Risky driving behaviors were related significantly and inversely to parental restrictions, parental monitoring, parental control, and self-control. In addition, risky driving behaviors were related significantly and positively to deviance acceptance, problem-behavior friends, and sensation seeking. To determine whether parenting practices were among the subset of variables useful in predicting risky driving behaviors, multiple regressions were conducted. Gender and time of licensure as well as all independent variables related significantly to risky driving behaviors at r = .20 or higher (see Table 1) were entered simultaneously in multiple regression equations using both forward and backward selection procedures. The criteria for inclusion into the final model was set at p < .05, and the results of forward and backward regressions were identical. As shown in Table 2, the variables that remained in the final model included deviance acceptance, problem-behavior friends, parental monitoring, and self-control. Traffic Violations and Motor Vehicle Crashes Of the adolescents, 35% reported being stopped by law enforcement for at least one traffic violation (i.e., a moving violation) since they obtained their driver’s license. Adolescents reported between 0 and 6 violations (X = .47, SD = .76). In addition, 32% of the adolescents were involved in at least one motor vehicle crash since they became licensed; about 9% of the total reported two or more crashes. Results of t tests indicated that males reported committing more violations than did females (t = 2.40, p < .05), and adolescents licensed 1 year or longer reported more violations than did those licensed less than 1 year (t = 2.62, p < .01). Number of crashes did not differ significantly by gender or time of licensure.

360


TABLE 2: Standardized Regression Coefficients for Significant Subset of Independent Variables in Final Model for Predicting Risky Driving Behaviors

Dependent Variable Risky Driving Behaviors

Independent Variable Deviance acceptance Problem-behavior friends Parental monitoring Self-control R square for model

Beta .26*** .18*** –.23*** –.15** .38***

NOTE: N = 288 for all calculations.

For purposes of the following analyses, violations and crashes were dichotomized as never/ever having had a violation or crash based on median splits of the distributions. In addition, parental restrictions were dichotomized as lenient/strict, and all other independent variables were dichotomized as low/high based on median responses. The results of unadjusted logistic regressions showed that the protective variables related significantly to having ever had a violation included strict restrictions on frequency of friends as passengers (OR = .21, 95% CI = .10 to .41), earlier weekday (OR = .47, 95% CI = .29 to .76) and weekend (OR = .39, 95% CI = .24 to .63) driving curfews, and high levels of parental control (OR = .39, 95% CI = .24 to .64) and self-control (odds ratio [OR] = .55, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = .34 to .89). Significantly related risk variables for having ever had a violation included longer time of licensure (OR = 2.30, 95% CI = 1.39 to 3.81) and high levels of deviance acceptance (OR = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.32 to 1.52), problembehavior friends (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.30 to 3.43), and sensation seeking (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.28 to 3.37). The variables related significantly to having ever had a crash included restricted frequency of friends as passengers (OR = .19, 95% CI = .09 to .40) and weekend driving curfews (OR = .55, 95% CI = .34 to .91). Results from multiple logistic regressions were examined separately for traffic violations and crashes in which gender, time of licensure, and significantly related independent variables were entered simultaneously into equations using both forward and backward selection procedures. Inclusion into the final model was set at p < .05. The results of forward and backward regressions were identical. As shown in Table 3, having had a violation was 2.01 times more likely if the adolescent had been licensed 1 year or more, .25 times less likely with strict restrictions (or 4.00 times more likely with lenient restrictions) related to the frequency of friends as passengers, and .45 times less likely with high (or 2.22 times more likely with low) parental control.


361

TABLE 3: Odds Ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals for Significant Subset of Independent Variables in Final Models for Predicting Violations and Crashes

95% Confidence Intervals Variable

Odds Ratio

Traffic violations Time of licensure (12 to 24 months vs. fewer than 12) Restrict frequency of friends (strict vs. lenient) Parental control (high vs. low) Motor vehicle crashes Restrict frequency of friends (high vs. low)

Upper

Lower

2.01 a .25 b .45

1.18 .12 .27

3.42 .51 .77

c

.07

.35

.15

NOTE: The odds ratios represent the difference in risk due to being in the higher versus lower categories or strict versus lenient categories. N = 300 for all calculations. Confidence intervals that pass through 1.00 are not significant. a. Reversed, becomes 4.00 times more likely with lenient restrictions. b. Reversed, becomes 2.22 times more likely with low control.

Having had a crash was .15 times less likely with strict restrictions (or 6.67 times more likely with lenient restrictions) related to frequency of friends as passengers (see Table 3). Relations Among Outcome Variables Risky driving behaviors and traffic violations were related positively and significantly (r = .37, p < .05). However, risky driving behaviors and motor vehicle crashes were not significantly related ( p > .05). (Risky driving behaviors were not included in analyses related to violations and crashes because risky driving behaviors was used as a dependent variable.)

DISCUSSION The purposes of this study were to examine the relations among adolescent problem-driving practices and parenting and to determine the relative impact of parenting practices on adolescent problem driving in relation to adolescents’orientations toward deviance. In this study, adolescents reported a moderately high frequency of problem-driving practices, averaging greater than two risky driving behaviors per driving event. In addition, approxi-

362


mately 35% had been stopped by law enforcement for at least one traffic violation and 32% had been involved in at least one motor vehicle crash. As found in other studies (Harre, Field, & Kirkwood, 1996; Jessor, 1987), males reported more risky driving behaviors and more violations than did females. However, crash rates did not differ significantly by gender. This research is among the first to document relations among parenting practices and adolescent problem-driving behaviors. As found in other research related to various problem behaviors (e.g., Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Reid & Patterson, 1989), higher levels of parental monitoring were related to fewer risky driving behaviors. Monitoring (i.e., knowing where adolescents are and what they are doing) may show parents’ concern about their children, may keep their children from becoming involved in problem behaviors or with problem-behavior adolescents, or may increase the likelihood that problem behaviors will be detected (Cohen & Rice, 1995; Crouter, MacDermid, McHale, & Perry-Jenkins, 1990; Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Lamborn et al., 1991; Reid & Patterson, 1989; Steinberg, 1987). By knowing where children are and what they are doing related to driving, adolescents may be held more responsible for their actions. In addition, their exposure to high-risk driving situations may be reduced. In addition, as found in studies related to other adolescent problem behaviors (Stice & Barrera, 1995; Stice et al., 1993), higher levels of parental control were related to fewer traffic violations. Similar to monitoring, parental control (i.e., parental direction and guidance of adolescents’ behavior) may be related to levels of responsible behavior in adolescents. As parents provide specific and clear guidelines, adolescents may learn appropriate behavior and responsibility for their actions. Adolescents who know their behavioral expectations may be more responsible in their learning to drive and in their driving as they get older. Parental control may also be related to a reduction in adolescents driving in high-risk situations. Traffic violations and crashes were related to parental restrictions on adolescents’ driving. In adjusted analyses, having had a traffic violation was 4 times more likely and having had a crash was 7 times more likely with lenient restrictions related to frequency of friends as passengers. With the high prevalence of adolescent crashes and research linking crashes with having friends as passengers (Doherty et al., 1998; Farrow, 1987; Williams, 1985), at least six states have adopted some form of graduated licensing program that restricts adolescents as passengers (Doherty & Andrey, 1997; Preusser, Zador, & Williams, 1993). However, parents in this study did little to restrict friends as passengers. Adolescents reported that they could have many friends as passengers most of the time, and adolescents licensed 1 year or longer reported more leniency than did those licensed less than 1 year.


363

Of the parenting practices and orientations toward deviance, only parental restriction on frequency of friends as passengers was significantly related to motor vehicle crashes. In addition, risky driving behaviors were not significantly related to crashes. The lack of relations may reflect the low prevalence of crashes in general and within the sample or that crashes may be a more random phenomenon not fully under an individual’s control or influence. However, parents placing restrictions on adolescent driving experiences, especially those that increase adolescent responsible driving behavior and reduce exposure to risky driving situations, should have an impact on the reduction of adolescent crashes as well as the reduction of risky driving behaviors and traffic violations. In addition to parental monitoring, deviance acceptance, problembehavior friends, and self-control contributed to the prediction of risky driving behaviors. As suggested by problem-behavior theory (Jessor & Jessor, 1977), orientations toward deviance are related to various adolescent problem behaviors. Adolescents who believe that deviance in general is acceptable and have friends who display deviant behaviors are likely to behave in deviant ways including risky driving and drinking and driving (Caspi et al., 1995; Jessor et al., 1997; West & Hall, 1997). In addition, adolescents low in self-control may react impulsively and not think through risky driving situations compared to those who display greater self-control. In addition to restricting friends as passengers, time of licensure was related to traffic violations. Violations were 2 times more likely with adolescents licensed more than 12 months than those licensed fewer than 12 months. This difference may reflect an increase in the amount of time spent driving. Lack of parental influence and driving inexperience may contribute to more opportunities for unsafe driving and detection by law enforcement. The findings of the present study are consistent with the constructs of authoritative parenting, specifically that demandingness in terms of parental monitoring, control, and restrictions on driving has a positive impact on adolescent development. Parenting is potentially important in managing adolescent problem-driving practices; however, limitations of the present study need to be addressed. Although participants were recruited in several high schools, participation was voluntary. Thus, the rates of problem-driving behaviors and parenting practices may not be representative of adolescents in general. In addition, all reports were from the adolescents. These reports reflect adolescents’ perceptions of parenting and orientations toward deviance; however, they may not be accurate reports of parenting or deviant behaviors. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes the examination of causal relations or change over time. More parental restrictions and

364


higher levels of parental monitoring and control may indeed prevent adolescents’ problem-driving practices; however, it may be that parents with adolescents who do not display problem-driving behaviors find it easier to provide restrictions, monitoring, and control than do parents whose adolescents display problem-driving practices. In addition, parents may become more lax or more adept at providing restrictions, monitoring, and control as their children age and/or gain more driving experience. With limited research in the area, more research is needed to discern the impact of parenting on adolescent problem driving. Increasing parental involvement in adolescents’ early driving experiences may be a promising way to increase responsible driving and reduce the number of risky driving behaviors, traffic violations, and crashes among adolescent drivers.

REFERENCES Alexander, E. A., Kallail, K. J., Burdsal, J. P., & Ege, D. L. (1990). Multifactorial causes of adolescent driver accidents: Investigation of time as a major variable. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 11, 413-417. Arnett, J. J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339-373. Arnett, J. J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness, and adolescent reckless behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 693-702. Arnett, J. J., Offer, D., & Fine, M. A. (1997). Reckless driving in adolescence: “State” and “trait” factors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29, 57-63. Barber, B. K. (1997). Adolescent socialization in context: The role of connection, regulation and autonomy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 5-11. Beck, K. H., & Lockhart, S. J. (1992). A model of parental involvement in adolescent drinking and driving. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 35-51. Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., McGee, R., & Silva, P. A. (1995). Identification of personality types at risk for poor health and injury in late adolescence. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 5, 330-350. Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573-588. Cohen, D. A., & Rice, J. C. (1995). A parent-targeted intervention for adolescent substance use prevention. Evaluation Review, 19, 159-180. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention & Committee on Adolescence. (1996). The teenage driver. Pediatrics, 98, 987-990. Crouter, A. C., MacDermid, S. M., McHale, S. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental monitoring and perceptions of children’s school performance and conduct in dual- and singleearner families. Developmental Psychology, 26, 649-657. Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: The role of parents and peers revisited. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11-25. Doherty, S. T., & Andrey, J. C. (1997). Young drives and graduated licensing: The Ontario case. Transportation, 24, 227-251.


365

Doherty, S. T., Andrey, J. C., & MacGregor, C. (1998). The situational risks of young drivers: The influence of passengers, time of day and day of week on accident rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 45-52. Donovan, J. E. (1993). Young adult drinking-driving: Behavioral and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 600-613. Farrow, J. A. (1987). Young driver risk taking: A description of dangerous driving situations among 16- to 19-year-old drivers. International Journal of Addictions, 22, 1255-1267. Harre, N., Field, J., & Kirkwood, B. (1996). Gender differences and areas of common concern in the driving behaviors and attitudes of adolescents. Journal of Safety Research, 27, 163-173. Heatherington, E. M., Clingempeel, W. G., Anderson, E. R., Deal, J. E., Stanley-Hagan, M., Hollier, E. A., & Linder, M. S. (1992). Coping with marital transition. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development, 57, 2-3. Jessor, R. (1987). Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent problem drinking. British Journal of Addiction, 82, 331-342. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. (1977). Problem behavior and psychological development: A longitudinal study of youth. San Diego: Academic Press. Jessor, R., Turbin, M. S., & Costa, F. M. (1997). Predicting developmental change in risky driving: The transition to young adulthood. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 4-16. Jonah, B. A. (1986). Accident risk and risk-taking behavior among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 255-271. Jonah, B. A. (1990). Age differences in risky driving. Health Education Research, 5, 139-149. Kessler, R. C., Little, R.J.A., & Groves, R. M. (1995). Advances in strategies for minimizing and adjusting for survey nonresponse. Epidemiologic Reviews, 17, 192-204. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049-1065. Lawton, R., Parker, D., Stradling, S. G., & Manstead, A.S.R. (1997). Predicting road traffic accidents: The role of social deviance and violations. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 249-263. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (1994). Traffic safety facts 1992: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the fatal accident reporting system and the general estimates system (revised 1992 data). Washington, DC: Author. Preusser, D. F. (1988). Delaying teenage licensure. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 4, 283-295. Preusser, D. F., Williams, A. F., & Lund, A. K. (1985). Parental role in teenage driving, restriction of frequency of friends in the car, weekday and weekend driving curfews, parental control. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 73-84. Preusser, D. F., Zador, P. L., & Williams, A. F. (1993). The effect of city curfew ordinances on teenage motor vehicle fatalities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 25, 641-645. Reid, J. B., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). The development of antisocial behaviour patterns in childhood and adolescence. European Journal of Personality, 3, 107-119. Simons-Morton, B., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., Saylor, K. E., Eitel, P., & Yu, K. (1999). Psychosocial, school, and parent factors associated with recent smoking among earlyadolescent boys and girls. Preventive Medicine, 28, 138-148. Smith, C., & Krohn, M. D. (1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 69-93. Steinberg, L. (1987). Familial factors in delinquency: A developmental perspective. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 255-268. Stice, E., & Barrera, M. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal effects between perceived parenting and adolescents’ substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 31, 322-334.

366


Stice, E., Barrera, M., & Chassin, L. (1993). Relation of parental support and control to adolescent’s externalizing symptomology and substance use: A longitudinal examination of curvilinear effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 609-629. Trimpop, R., & Kirkcaldy, B. (1997). Personality predictors of driving accidents. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 147-152. Ulmer, R. G., Williams, A. F., & Preusser, D. F. (1997). Crash involvements of 16-year-old drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 28(2), 97-103. Vavrik, J. (1997). Personality and risk-taking: A brief report on adolescent male drivers. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 461-465. Vingilis, E., & Adlaf, E. (1990). The structure of problem behavior among Ontario high school students: A confirmatory-factor analysis. Health Education Research, 5, 151-160. Weinberger, D. A. (1997). Distress and self-restraint as measures of adjustment across the life span: Confirmatory factor analysis in clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 9, 132-135. West, R., & Hall, J. (1997). The role of personality and attitudes in traffic accident risk. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 253-264. Williams, A. F. (1985). Nighttime driving and fatal crash involvement of teenagers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 1-5. Williams, A. F., Lund, A. K., & Preusser, D. F. (1986). Drinking and driving among high school students. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 643-655. Williams, A. F., & Preusser, D. F. (1997). Night driving restrictions for youthful drivers. Journal of Public Health Policy, 18, 1-12. Young, K. (1993). Workshop to identify requirements designed to reduce young driver risk taking and improve decision making skills. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service. Yu, J., & Williford, W. R. (1993). Alcohol and risk/sensation seeking: Specifying a causal model on high-risk driving. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 12, 79-96.

Jessica L. Hartos, Ph.D., received her doctoral degree in developmental psychology from the University of Houston in 1998. She is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the Prevention Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Her research interests focus on children at risk, the impact of parent-child and other social relationships on adolescent adjustment, and the development and evaluation of prevention/intervention programs. Recent articles have appeared in Journal of Adolescent Research. Patricia Eitel, Ph.D., is a project director with the Menninger Foundation. She currently is the national coordinator/director of a multisite evaluation of the Covenant House Crisis Program. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship with the Prevention Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health and received her doctoral degree in social/health psychology from the State University of New York at StonyBrook. Her research interests focus on the development, implementation, and evaluation of risk-behavior prevention programs targeted at youth. Recent articles have appeared in Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Preventive Medicine, and Addictive Behaviors.


367

Denise L. Haynie, Ph.D., M.P.H., is a research fellow at the Prevention Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. She received her doctorate in developmental psychology from Catholic University of America and her Masters in Public Health from Johns Hopkins University. Her research interests focus on adolescents’ relationships with their parents and peers, particularly how these relationships affect health-related behaviors. Recent publications include articles in Health Education Research, American Journal of Health Behavior, Preventative Medicine, and Addictive Behaviors. Bruce G. Simons-Morton, Ed.D., M.P.H., is Chief, Prevention Research Branch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, where he directs a program of research on child and adolescent health behavior. His current research focuses on adolescent problem behavior and prevention and injury prevention. Formerly, he was associate professor of behavioral sciences at the University of Texas School of Public Health. He is the vice president of the Society for Public Health Education and is a past chairman of the Public Health Education Section of the American Public Health Association. Recent publications include articles in Health Education Research, American Journal of Health Behavior, Preventive Medicine, and Addictive Behaviors.