1-s2.0-s0001457511000820-main

Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 17201729

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .co

The con iltoward ive

Orit TaubThe Louis and G

a r t i c l

Article history:Received 3 JunReceived in reAccepted 3 Ap

Keywords:AccompaniedDriving styleParenting

gradriverriesg (ATof thtal dic (Sensiodrivi

They also indicated signicant relationship between youngsters ATAD and their perceptions of theirparents parentingmodes (responsive, demanding, and autonomy-granting). Finally, the results indicatedsignicant negative associations between ATAD of tension, avoidance, disapproval, and anxiety, andfamily cohesion and adaptability, and a positive association between these two and relatedness. Theresults are discussed in respect to the relationship between the parental model and the young driversATAD inparticular, and riskmanagement ingeneral, andpractical implicationsof these results areoffered.

1. Introdu

As trafamong ado(Beck et al.were desigextend supof restrictioof such prpart in resand a growdrivers indeMorton et aadolescentsedge regardcharacteriststudy.

In Israelof 16.5 yea

Tel.: +972E-mail add

0001-4575/$ doi:10.1016/j. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ction

c crashes are the leading cause of death and injurylescents between the ages of 16 and 20 the world over, 2005), Graduated Driving Licensure (GDL) programsned in many places (Williams, 2007). Such programservised driving for several months and impose a setns on novice drivers (Vanlaar et al., 2009). As partograms, parents are requested to take a signicanttricting their offspring involvement in risky driving,ing body of evidence indicates that parents of younged play a signicant role in their teens safety (Simons-l., 2003). However, there is paucity of information about perception of accompanied driving, and lack of knowl-ing how such perceptions are associated with parentalics. This examination was undertaken in the current

, youngsters can begin taking driving lessons at the agers, and are taught only by professional instructors on

3 5318066; fax: +972 3 7384042.ress: [email protected]

specially equipped vehicles. Only during their lessons are learn-ers allowed to drive. Issuance of a driving license is contingentupon passing theory and on-road driving tests, the latter of whichrequires a minimum of 28 on-road driving lessons and a mini-mum age of 17. Until the year 2000, there were no restrictionson novice drivers once they received their licenses. Since 2000,all new drivers, regardless of age, must be accompanied by anexperienced driver for the rst three months (two months untilNovember 2004), with an experienced driver being a person overthe age of 24 who has held a valid driving license for at least veyears. In addition, starting in November 2004, for a period of twoyears after licensure, the number of passengers in the car is lim-ited to two (excluding the driver) unless an experienced driver ispresent. There are no restrictions onnighttimedriving, and nomin-imum requirement regarding the number of driving hours duringthe accompanied driving phase (ADP), whose sole criterion is thelength of time that has elapsed since the license was issued. Thus,young drivers may not drive at all during the ADP and still be fullylicensed at the end of the three month period (Lotan and Toledo,2007).

Empirical evidence indicates that parents of young drivers playa signicant role in their teens safety (Simons-Morton et al.,2003), and that parental involvement in themanagement of young

see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.aap.2011.04.001tribution of perceived parental and famaccompanied driving among young dr

man - Ben-Ari

abi Weisfeld School of Social Work, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

e i n f o

e 2010vised form 1 April 2011ril 2011

driving

a b s t r a c t

One of the main requirements of thebe accompanied by an experienced dreceipt of their license. The current seattitudes toward accompanied drivinparenting modes, as well as dynamictheir ATAD, and either perceivedparen2, n=120), or perceived family dynambetween the young drivers ATAD of town perceptions of the characteristicm/locate /aap

ial characteristics to attitudesrs

uated driving licensing system in Israel is that new drivers(usually one of their parents) for the rst three months afterof studies examined the associations between young driversAD) and their perception of their parents driving styles andeir family. Young drivers completed questionnaires assessingriving style (Study1,n=100), perceivedparenting style (Studytudy 3, n=254). The results indicated signicant associationsn, relatedness, avoidance, disapproval, and anxiety, and theirng styles of their parents (risky, anxious, angry, and careful).

O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 17201729 1721

novice drivers positively impacts their safety (Simons-Morton andQuimet, 2006). In other words, studies have shown the effect ofparents rearing style on their childrens future behaviors in gen-eral, and their driving in particular. Parenting style is denedas a constemunicatedwhich pare1993). It reemotional rThese threeenting (Darand involvetheir child.impositionble, compe2001) whosuch parentesteem and(Shaffer, 20authoritativsion and anproblems tnot autorit2007).

Findingsreport highare less likiors and tofewer restrcent childreteens driviing and mof this kinand teenagno prior stparenting sdriving.

Moreoveparenting sfunctioningadaptabilityFamily cohemembershilys abilityet al., 1980ships, andfunctional dand changement in oneand indepeseparate timunable to tMoreover,the environthese descrhighly relevto driving, nspecicallyModel).

In additiare just onowndrivingfound evidstyles (Bianand have shcar crashes

dents (Ferguson et al., 2001; Wilson et al., 2006). This may explain,at least in part, why parent-supervised driving in and of itself hasbeen found to have limited inuence on adolescent crash rates.Simons-Morton (2007) claims that when supervising their novice

e driguidatingironmIt issafereenssitu

s tees, onal suicatCurrdoleshetis a

rentientlyns o): ted, anwithof coith thcy tompaexc

criticcompto bewit

s, oroundin exhaviy welesshtinnt ATseriociatl pars ofted thoulnd aouldnd atednsiveandiof terela

s onwithy ATthatyoueir pahildrdraw varllation of attitudes toward the child that are com-to the child and create the emotional climate withinnts express their behaviors (Darling and Steinberg,fers specically to three dimensions: demandingness,esponsiveness, and psychological autonomy-granting.dimensions indicate a pattern of authoritative par-

ling et al., 2006). Authoritative parents are acceptingd, thereby inuencing the socialization processes ofThe combination of support for the child and theof limits allows for the development of a responsi-tent individual (Nijhof and Engles, 2007; Steinberg,is able to adjust to new situations. The children ofs have been found to be self-reliant, to have high self-social skills, and to use effective coping strategies

00). Moreover, studies report that adolescents withe parents experience less internalizing (e.g., depres-xiety) and externalizing (e.g., delinquency, violence)han adolescents and young adults whose parents areative (e.g., Aunola et al., 2000; Nijhof and Engles,

relating specically to driving indicate that teens wholevels of parental monitoring and driving restrictionsely to engage in a variety of risky driving behav-report violations and crashes than are those with

ictions and less monitoring. Furthermore, the adoles-n of parents who report frequently supervising theirng and restricting access to a car report less speed-ore seat belt use (Beck et al., 2001). While studiesd have examined the link between parenting stylee driving behavior, to the best of my knowledge,udy has explored the potential associations betweentyle and adolescents attitudes toward accompanied

r, parents inuences are not only conveyed by theirtyles, but also through the family dynamics. A well-family has a good balance of both cohesion and(e.g., Olson et al., 1985; Seligman and Darling, 1997).sion is dened as the emotional bonding that family

ave towardoneanother.Adaptabilitymeasures the fam-to change in response to a variety of situations (Olson, 1985), and relates to negotiation styles, role relation-relationship rules. Balanced families tend to be moreuring the life-cycle,managing towork through stability,whereas unbalance family systems show little involve-anothers life, and there is a great deal of separatenessndence among them. Individuals do their own thing,e, space and interests predominate, and members are

urn to one another for support and problem-solving.they nd it hard to cope with changing demands ofment and perceive them frequently as chaotic. Thoughiptions of various kinds of family systems seem to beant to parents and youngdrivers relationship in regardo previously published article could be traced, relatingto Olsons family system model (called the Circumplex

on, parents involvement, supervision and monitoringe aspect of the bigger picture. Another is the parentshabits. Previous studies, usingdifferentmeasures, have

ence of the intergenerational transmission of drivingchi and Summala, 2004; Taubman -Ben-Ari et al., 2005),own that parents involvement in trafc violations andpredicts their childrens involvement in similar inci-

teenagsafety,anticipcle env2006).muchwhen tdrivingsuch a

Thuparentare indstyles.with alearn wdriversi.e., pa

Recdomai(ATADstressementfeelingness wtendenof accondingbeingthe acdencydrivingdistreswere fusefuland beanxietof reckhighligdiffere

Thetheassgenerasamplepredicstyleswance, astyle wance, afor relaresponof demlevelshigherreportciatedanxietnotedrely onand ththeir ccan bestudiesvers, parents can be expected to place a high priority oning their youngster through difcult driving situations,andwarning of hazards, and keeping the internal vehi-ent free fromdistraction (Simons-MortonandQuimet,no wonder, then, that parent-supervised practice is(Mayhew et al., 2003) than early independent drivingmust, for the rst time, deal on their ownwith complexations, often in the presence of in-vehicle distractionsnage passengers and the use of electronic devices.the one hand there is evidence of the importance of

pervisionof teenagedrivers, andon theotherhand thereions of the intergenerational transmission of drivingently it seems important to combine this informationcents perception of accompanied driving in order toher the type of supervised driving perceived by youngssociated with either of these parental characteristics,ng style or driving style., Taubman - Ben-Ari (2010a) conceptualized vef views and attitudes toward accompanied drivingnsion, which reects the youngsters sense of beinggry, irritated, and in constant conict and disagree-the accompanying driver; relatedness, referring to ampanionship and interpersonal closeness and related-e accompanying driver; avoidance, which represents aprefer not to comply and cooperate with the process

nied driving, devoting as little time as possible to it anduses in order to avoid it; disapproval, that is, a sense ofized and expressing criticism and disapproval towardanying driver; and anxiety, which relates to the ten-afraid that something bad might happen as a result ofh the accompanying driver because of the distraction,anxiety aroused by his or her presence. These factorsto display internal reliability and validity and to beplaining variations in maladaptive driving cognitionsors. Most tellingly, tension, disapproval, criticism andre shown to be most closely associated with a clusterdriving behaviors (Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2010a), therebyg the importance of discovering the antecedents of theAD.es of current studies was therefore designed to examineionsbetweenATADandbothparental driving styles andenting styles and family dynamics, using three separateyoung novice drivers. In respect to driving styles, it wasat perceived parental risky, angry, and anxious drivingd be associatedwith higher tension, disapproval, avoid-nxiety ATAD, and perceived parental careful drivingbe associated with lower tension, disapproval, avoid-nxiety ATAD. No a priori hypothesis was formulatedess. In regard to parenting styles, higher perceptions ofand autonomy-granting parents and a lower perceptionng parents was expected to be associated with lowernsion, avoidance, disapproval, and anxiety ATAD, andtedness. Finally, in regard to family dynamics, highercohesion and adaptability were expected to be asso-lower levels of tension, avoidance, disapproval, and

AD, and higher relatedness. Importantly, it should beall three studies designs were correlational and theyng drivers self-reports about their views on themselvesrents. Thus, though it is assumed that parents inuenceens attitudes andbehaviors, the only conclusionswhichn at this stage, are regarding relationships between theiables.

1722 O. Taubman - Ben-Ari / Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (2011) 17201729

2. Study 1

Therst studyexamined theassociationsbetween theveATADfactors and young drivers perceptions of the driving style of theirprincipal ac

2.1. Method

2.1.1. ParticOne hun

Israel whomonths, SDwere recruwere distristudents frand familysisted of 33(M=18.41,by their fath

2.1.2. ProceParticipa

containingATAD w

ing Scale (Atapping thbachs alphavoidance,items (Cronalpha= .73)the extent tior during tranging frove factorseach domaiof the givenparticipantsdriver. Onlyparents we

DrivingStyle Inventand reliablestyles: (1) rrisky and hstimulationdecisions, tto drive fasanxious dridistress reddistressedwdriving situto commit dplay cognitiin emotionand achievetile drivingtoward othanger whenitems relatifeel no timecarefully, toattitude towpantswerereects theandbehavioscale rangin

Table 1Pearson correlations between the ATADS factors and parents perceived drivingstyles (Study 1).

ATADS factors Parents driving styles

ndnessncerovaly

5.1.01.

revioere fohaveudy,86 focarepanyy avscorprin

emo, age.

sults

rsonetweappcan bed. Tstylas pwhewithstylen thn, thempleprin.ersrelatas me yorovated trespas ptednas uIn addition, although itwas not found to be signicant, theres to be a tendency for fathers anxious driving style to betrongly related to the youngsters desire to avoid accompa-riving than mothers.the angry style, whereasmothers angry stylewas positivelyted with the young drivers tension, disapproval and anxi-4) = .58, .59, .62, p< .001, respectively, fathers angry styless or unrelated to these ATAD, r(66) = .20, .06, .17, p> .05;2.82, 2.52, p< .01, respectively. In other words, on thewholes that mothers angry driving style is more closely relatedcompanying driver, either their father or mother.

ipantsdred young drivers from various geographical areas inhad had a driving license for 114 months (M=7.65=3.70) volunteered to participate in the study. Theyited via a convenience sampling: the questionnairesbuted to an initial sample of university and collegeom all over Israel, who asked friends, acquaintances,members to complete them. The nal sample con-women and 67 men, ranging in age from 17 to 23

SD= .95). Sixty-six percent were accompanied mostlyer, and 34% by their mother.

dure and measuresnts were presented with a packet of questionnairesthree instruments.as assessed by the Attitudes toward Accompanied Driv-TADS; Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2010a), a 23-item scale

e ve domains of ATAD: tension, 10 items (Cron-a = .90); relatedness, 2 items (Cronbachs alpha= .60);3 items (Cronbachs alpha= .65); disapproval, 4bachs alpha= .75); and anxiety, 4 items (Cronbachs. Participants were asked to read each item and to rateo which it reected their feelings, thoughts, and behav-he accompanied driving period using a 5-point scalem 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Scores for each of thewere computed by averaging the ratings of the items inn, with higher scores indicating a higher endorsementattitude. Immediately before completing the ATADS,were asked to identify their principal accompanyingyoung drivers who were accompanied by one of their

re included in the study.style was measured using the Multidimensional Drivingory (MDSI; Taubman - Ben-Ari et al., 2004), a validated44-item scale assessing four broad domains of drivingeckless and careless driving style 11 items relating toigh-speed driving. The items tap the tendency to seek, sensation, and risk during driving, to take risky drivingo engage in risky driving, and to display the tendencyt, as well as signs of time pressure while driving; (2)ving style 19 items tapping anxious, dissociative, anduction driving. The items relate to the tendency to feelhendriving, todisplay signsof anxiety and fear in givenations, to express doubt and lack of driving condence,riving errors as a result of being easily distracted, to dis-ve gaps and dissociation during driving, and to engage-focused coping activities in order to reduce distressrelaxation and calm while driving; (3) angry and hos-style 5 items relating to the tendency to be hostileer drivers, to behave aggressively, and to feel intensedriving; and (4) Patient and careful driving style 9

ng to the tendency to be polite toward other drivers, topressure and display patience while driving, to driveplan an effective route, and to adopt a problem-solvingard driving-related problems and obstacles. Partici-

asked to rate the extent towhich they believe each itemir principal accompanying drivers feelings, thoughts,r duringdriving, indicating their responses on a6-pointg from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much).

TensioRelateAvoidaDisappAnxiet

* p< .0** p< .0*** p< .0

In ptors wand torent ststyle, .for theaccompant bhigherby thedriver.

A dgenderlicense

2.2. Re

Peations bresults

Asemergdrivingance wstyles,ciateddriving

Whwomeeral saof theTable 2

Fishthe corWherewith thdisappunrelap< .05,style wof relastyle wp< .05.appearmore snied d

Forassociaety, r(3was leZ=2.1,it seemAnxious Risky Angry Careful

.07 .29*** .29** .27**

.16 .09 .01 .04

.37*** .22* .12 .18

.15 .23* .19* .08

.12 .25** .27** .17

us studies (Taubman - Ben-Ari et al., 2004), these fac-und to reect coherent and meaningful driving styles,adequate internal reliabilities and validity. In the cur-Cronbachs alpha coefcients were .85 for the anxiousr the reckless style, .84 for the angry style, and .60ful style. Four scores for perceived driving style of theing driver were therefore computed for each partici-eraging the scores on the items in each factor, withes reecting greater endorsement of a specic stylecipal accompanying driver, as perceived by the young

graphic questionnaire was used to provide data as to, and the length of time the participant hadhad a driving

and discussion

correlations were calculated to examine the associa-en the ve ATAD scores and the four driving styles. Theear in Table 1.e seen from Table 1, several signicant correlations

ension was related positively to the reckless and angryes, and negatively to the careful driving style. Avoid-ositively associated with the reckless and the anxiousreas both disapproval and anxiety were positively asso-theaccompanyingdrivers perceived reckless andangryes.e correlations were computed separately for men andy revealed the same pattern of associations as the gen-. The associations were then examined by the identitycipal accompanying driver. The results are shown in

Z tests revealed interesting differences in the strength ofions in Table 2 for the anxious and angry driving styles.others anxious driving style was positively associatedung drivers attitudes of tension, r(34) = .37, p< .05, andl, r(34) = .44, p< .01, fathers anxious driving style waso these attitudes, r(66) =.02, .06, p> .05; Z=1.64, 1.89,ectively. On the other hand, fathers anxious drivingositively associated with the young drivers perceptioness, r(66) = .24, p< .05, while mothers anxious drivingnrelated to this attitude, r(34) =.15, p> .05; Z=1.79,


Table 2Pearson correlations between the ATADS factors and parents perceived driving styles, by principal accompanying driver (Study 1).

ATADS factor Fathers (as principal accompanying driver) driving styles Mothers (as principal accompanying driver) driving styles

Anxious Risky Angry Careful Anxious Risky Angry Careful

TensionRelatednessAvoidanceDisapprovalAnxiety

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

than the fatthat this perwith basica

Fivehiertribution ofsociodemogregression,variable), athe principahoursperwand familiacrash wereIn Step 3, aof their maperceived d(mother oronly variabthe equatioprediction o

As cansion was sF(12,87) =11, only thesignicant chigher the tstyles wereinteractionangry drivinandWest, 1ents angrywith tensiop< .05, it wadriver, b= .0driving stylsion, no sucrole.

The secodid not sigHowever, indicted by thexplained 3variables, tithe past weexperiencintion to parewas foundof accompawho was themerged inrevealed thwas negativfathers wersignicant w

tionto h

theirhe fotly pwhias fontaldisae acc3. S

thousitivrs wantus, wwas rnshiphe iancomeosignWhey to ae acc3. Shougely ahe achen fas a hto h

dicats, Stustyl

es toe perpanienmoerceion,g drdancs re.02 .26* .20 .21.24* .21 .09 .04.41*** .21 .15 .28*.06 .16 .06 .01.06 .25* .17 .14

hers to the young drivers ATAD.Moreover, it is evidentceivednon-adaptiveparental driving style is associatedlly negative ATAD.archical regressionswereperformedtoexplore thecon-the perceived parental driving style, beyond that of theraphic variables, to each of the ATADs. In Step 1 of thethe sociodemographic variables of gender (a dummyge, number of months since licensure, the identity ofl accompanying driver (a dummy variable), howmanyeekonaverage theydrove together, injury ina car crash,rity with someone else who had been injured in a carentered. In Step 2, the four driving styles were entered.s participants were asked to relate to the driving stylein accompanying driver, the interactions between theriving styles and who was the accompanying driverfather) were entered using a stepwise method, so thatles showing signicant contributions were entered inn. Table 3 presents the regression coefcients for thef the ve ATAD factors.be seen from Table 3, in the rst regression ten-ignicantly predicted by the independent variables,.99, p< .05, which explained 22% of the variance. In Steptime which passed since licensure was found to be aontributor. Thus, the more experienced the driver, theension reported. Whereas none of the parents drivingnot found to contribute directly in Step 2, a signicantbetween who was the accompanying driver and theg style emerged in Step 3. Simple slope analyses (Aiken991) revealed that although the assessment of the par-driving style was positively and signicantly associatedn whenmothers were the accompanying driver, b= .55,s not signicant when fathers were the accompanying7, n.s. Thus, whereas a higher perception of motherse as angry was related to higher reported ATAD of ten-h relationship was indicated when fathers fullled this

nd regression indicated that the independent variablesnicantly predict relatedness, F(12,87) =1.44, p> .05.the third regression, avoidance was signicantly pre-

e independent variables, F(12,87) =3.29, p< .001,which1% of the variance. In respect to the sociodemographicme since licensure and being hurt in a trafc crash inre associated with avoidance, so that longer time andg a crash were related to greater avoidance. In rela-

perceprelatednying

In tnicanp= .07,crashwnoparetude ofwas thin Stepthat alwas pomothesignicn.s. Thangryrelatio

In tthe varwith stributephase.directlwas thin Stepthat altpositivwere tcantwwhererelatedwas in

Thudrivingattitudents araccombe evewere pto tenspanyinto avoindingntal driving style, higher perception of the anxious styleto contribute signicantly to the attitude of avoidancenied driving. Finally, a signicant interaction betweene accompanying driver and the careful driving styleStep 3. Simple slope analyses (Aiken and West, 1991)at although the assessment of the parents careful styleely and signicantly associated with avoidance whene the accompanying drivers, b=.18, p< .05, it was nothenmothers served this role, b= .16, n.s. Thus, a lower

whether thchildren in

3. Study 2

On the aoverall wayspring, migperceptions.37* .35* .58*** .41**.15 .25 .31* .25.22 .24 .04 .06.44** .39* .59*** .26.30* .24 .62*** .26

of the father as endorsing the careful driving style wasigher reported avoidance, when fathers were accompa-offspring.urth regression, disapproval was only marginally sig-redicted by the independent variables, F(12,87) = .74,ch explained 19% of the variance. Again, being hurt in aund to contribute signicantly to disapproval.Whereasdriving stylewas found tocontributedirectly to theatti-pproval in Step 2, a signicant interaction betweenwhoompanying driver and the angry driving style emergedimple slope analyses (Aiken and West, 1991) revealedgh the assessment of the parents angry driving styleely and signicantly associated with disapproval whenere the accompanying driver, b= .53, p< .05, it was notwhen fathers were the accompanying driver, b=.05,hereas a higher perception of mothers driving style aselated to higher reported ATAD of disapproval, no suchwas indicated when fathers fullled this role.

nal regression, the studys variables explained 19% ofe in anxiety, F(12,87) =1.72, p< .05. In Step 1, familiarityne who was injured in a car crash was found to con-icantly to higher anxiety in the accompanying driverreas no parental driving style was found to contributenxiety in Step 2, a signicant interaction between whoompanying driver and the angry driving style emergedimple slope analyses (Aiken and West, 1991) revealedh theassessmentof theparents angrydriving stylewasnd signicantly associated with anxiety when motherscompanying driver, b= .53, p< .001, it was not signi-atherswere theaccompanyingdriver,b=.11,n.s.Thus,igher perception of mothers driving style as angry wasigher reported ATAD of anxiety, no such relationshiped when fathers fullled this role.dy1established the relationshipbetweenparents owne (as perceived by their children) and the youngstersward accompanied driving, and showed thatwhen par-ceived to havemaladaptive driving styles, the quality ofd driving is lower. Thiswas shown in the regressions tore sowhenmotherswere the accompanyingdrivers andived to be characterized by the angry style (in relationdisapproval, and anxiety) and when fathers as accom-ivers were perceived to drive less carefully (in relatione). The question still remains, however, whether thesesult from the specic mode of how parents drive, or

ey reect characteristics of the way they treat theirgeneral.

ssumption that not only parents driving styles, but thein which they handle their relationship with their off-ht be an important contributor to the young driversof accompanied driving, Study 2 was designed to


Table 3Hierarchical regression coefcients (beta weights) for the prediction of ATAD (Study 1).

Tension Relatedness Avoidance Disapproval Anxiety

Step 1GenderAgeNumber of mPrincipal accAverage numInjured in caFamiliar witR2

Step 2Parenting dr

RiskyAnxiousAngryCareful

R2

AccompanAccompanAccompan

R2

R2

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

examine thdrivers pertion, the conand driving

3.1. Method

3.1.1. ParticOne hun

graphical amonths (Min the studthe questiosity and coacquaintansample conto 21 (M=1mostly by threst by othe


containingATADwa

Scale (ATADCronbachsfor relatednanxiety.

Parentin(PSI-II; Darthree dimen(e.g., My faCronbachs(e.g., I canproblem; CpsychologicI have a rigfathers, .60and rate thranging froeach of the

itemtionemoc infort thense,r ofwhe

er th

sults

he rbet

ing s.Tablemanasso.00 .16.06 .11

onths since licensure .24* .03ompanying driver .02 .03ber of hours of accompanied driving .12 .12r crash .10 .03h someone hurt in car crash .16 .01

.09 .04

iving style.12 .27.18 .21.17 .29.16 .10.09* .07

ying driver angry driving style .49* ying driver risky driving style .40*ying driver careful driving style

.04* .05*

.22* .17

e association between the ve ATAD factors and youngceptions of the parenting style of their parents. In addi-tribution of the parenting styles, beyond demographichistory variables, was assessed.

ipantsdred and twenty-one young drivers from various geo-reas in Israel who had had a driving license for 125=10.37 months, SD=6.99) volunteered to participatey. They were recruited via a convenience sampling:nnaires were distributed to an initial sample of univer-llege students from all over Israel, who asked friends,ces, and family members to complete them. The nalsisted of 64 women and 57men, ranging in age from 178.48, SD=1.17). Sixty-two percent were accompaniedeir father, 21% by their mother, 3% by a sibling, and ther individuals (e.g., a neighbor, another familymember).

on thepercep

A dgraphito repoing licnumbedriver,whethcrash.

3.2. Re

In tductedparentTable 4

AsThe decantlydure and measuresnts were presented with a packet of questionnairesthree instruments.s assessed by the Attitudes toward Accompanied DrivingS; Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2010a), as described in Study 1.alphas for the current sample were .89 for tension, .63ess, .74 for avoidance, .63 for disapproval, and .70 for

g style was assessed by the Parenting Style Inventoryling and Toyokawa, 1997), a 15-item scale, relating tosions of parenting style (5 items each): demandingnessther/mother really expects me to follow family rules;alpha: .76 for fathers, .70 for mothers); responsivenesscount on my father/mother to help me out if I have aronbachs alpha: .86 for fathers, .86 for mothers); andal autonomy-granting (e.g., My father/motherbelievesht to my own point of view; Cronbachs alpha: .71 forformothers). Participants were asked to read each iteme extent to which they agree with it on a 5-point scalem 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores forthree factors were computed by averaging the ratings

The responnicantly aanxiety, anThe autonoatively andanxiety.

In the swere perforbeyond thaATADs. Inables of genlicensure, tdummy vadrove togetone else wh2, the threepresents thATAD facto

As cansion was sF(13,95) =2.02 .07 .14.07 .12 .00.33** .07 .08.06 .00 .04.10 .05 .10.27** .26** .12.09 .15 .20*.15* .10 .08

.06 .15 .01

.40*** .00 .02.23 .06 .19.13 .00 .14.13** .03 .06 .57** 1.12***

.35* .03* .06** .05**

.31*** .19 .19*

s in each domain, with higher scores indicating a higherof the parenting style.graphic questionnaire was used to obtain sociodemo-rmation aswell as drivingdata. Participantswere askedeir age, gender, the number of months they held a driv-the identity of the accompanying driver, the averagehours per week they drove with the accompanyingther they had ever been injured in a car crash, andey were familiar with someone who was hurt in a car

and discussion

st stage of the analysis, Pearson correlations were con-ween the ve ATAD scores and the three perceivedtyles of mothers and fathers. The results appear in

4 shows, several signicant associations emerged.ding style for both parents was positively and signi-ciated with the ATAD factors of avoidance and anxiety.

sive style for both parents was negatively and sig-ssociated with tension, avoidance, disapproval andd correlated positively with interpersonal relatedness.my-granting style of both fathers andmotherswas neg-signicantly associated with tension, disapproval and

econd stage of analysis, ve hierarchical regressionsmed to explore the contribution of the parenting style,t of the sociodemographic variables, to each of theStep 1 of the regression, the sociodemographic vari-der (a dummy variable), age, number of months sincehe identity of the principal accompanying driver (ariable), how many hours per week on average theyher, injury in a car crash, and familiarity with some-o had been injured in a car crash were entered. In Stepparenting styles for each parent were entered. Table 5e regression coefcients for the prediction of the vers.be seen from Table 5, in the rst regression ten-ignicantly predicted by the independent variables,.02, p< .05, which explained 20% of the variance, with


Table 4Pearson correlations between the ATADS factors and parenting styles (Study 2).

ATADS factor Fathers Mothers

Demandingness Responsiveness Autonomy-granting Demandingness Responsiveness Autonomy-granting

Tension .12 .34*** .32*** .16 .39*** .36***Relatedness .06 .24** .05 .05 .20* .04Avoidance .29*** .42*** .07 .28** .38*** .12Disapproval .1 .28** .26** .07 .32*** .20*Anxiety .18* .33*** .34*** .18* .31*** .28*** p< .05.** p< .01.*** p< .001.

only age found to be a signicant contributor. Thus, the youngerthe driver, the higher the tension reported. The second regres-sion indicated that the independent variables did not signicantlypredict relatedness, F(13,95) =1.22, p> .05. However, in the thirdregression, avoidance was signicantly predicted by the indepen-dent variables, F(13,95) =4.83, p< .001, which explained 43% ofthe variance. In respect to the sociodemographic variables, num-ber of hours driven with the accompanying driver was inverselyassociated with avoidance. In relation to parenting style, both par-ents responsive style and fathers demanding style were found tocontribute signicantly to the attitude of avoidance of accompa-nieddriving,withhigherdemandingness and lower responsivenessassociated with higher levels of avoidance.

In the fourth regression, disapproval was signicantly pre-dicted by the independent variables, F(13,95) =3.04, p< .001,whichexplained 3the accompdisapprovain a car craslower levelproval. In rand materntribution, thresponsiven

In the the variancautonomy-

anxiety, with a higher level of autonomy granted by fathers asso-ciated with lower levels of anxiety.

Study 2 therefore revealed that beyond the signicant associa-tions between perception of parents and ATAD, parental dimen-sions contribute signicantly in the regressions to youngstersperceptions of accompanied driving, even beyond sociodemo-graphicvariables. Specically, itwas found thatwhereas responsiveand autonomy-granting parents contribute to higher positive andlower negative perceptions, demanding parents contribute tomorenegative ATAD.

4. Study 3

On the assumption that not only parents driving styles, andtheir specic rearing mode, but the more comprehensive family

e, mipanietweer famd adics,ious

ethod

Partio hucal a

Table 5Hierarchical re


Step 2Parenting st

Father:DemandResponsAutonom

Mother:DemandResponsAutonom

R2

R2

* p< .05.** p< .01.*** p< .001.3% of the variance. Again, number of hours driven withanying driver was found to contribute signicantly tol, aswas familiaritywith someonewhohadbeen injuredh, with less hours spent in accompanied driving and aof familiarity associated with higher levels of disap-

espect to parenting style, paternal autonomy-grantingal responsiveness displayed an inverse signicant con-at is, more autonomy-granting by the father and moreess from the mother contributed to lower disapproval.nal regression, parenting style alone explained 29% ofe in anxiety, F(14,95) =2.62, p< .01. Specically, fathersgranting style was found to contribute signicantly to

climataccomtion beof theision andynamthe var

4.1. M

4.1.1.Tw

graphi

gression coefcients (beta weights) for the prediction of ATAD (Study 2).

Tension Relatedness

.05 .13.36** .04

onths since licensure .10 .05ompanying driver .02 .23*ber of hours of accompanied driving .08 .02r crash .20 .06h someone hurt in car crash .03 .10

.14* .08

yleing .07 .07ive .04 .07y-granting .04 .06

ing .06 .13ive .20 .27*y-granting .15 .05

.06 .08

.20* .16ght also contribute to the young drivers perceptions ofddriving, Study3wasdesigned to examine the associa-n the ve ATAD factors and young drivers perceptionsily dynamics, namely the degree of the family cohe-aptability. In addition, the contribution of the familybeyond demographic and driving history variables, toATAD, was assessed.

cipantsndred and fty-four young drivers from various geo-reas in Israel who had had a driving license for 124

Avoidance Disapproval Anxiety

.04 .08 .08.12 .13 .21.01 .03 .13.03 .05 .04.21* .20* .17.07 .03 .07.12 .23* .11.07 .12 .07.31** .01 .07.31** .10 .18.21 .24* .28*

.10 .15 .02.22* .30* .16.18 .13 .12.36*** .21*** .22***

.43*** .33*** .29***


Table 6Pearson correlations between the ATADS factors and family cohesion and adaptabil-ity (Study 3).

ATADS factor Family dynamics

TensionRelatednessAvoidanceDisapprovalAnxiety

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

months (Min the studthe questiosity and coacquaintansample condid not ind(M=18.46,Sby their farest by othber).


containingATADwa

Scale (ATADCronbachsfor relatednanxiety.

Family dCohesion Evitem scaleability to ading from 1 (cohesion in.79. Scoresing the ratiindicating a

A demoggraphic info2.

4.2. Results

In the rducted betwscores. The

As Tablevariables. Band signicavoidance,nicantly ainvolved anthe negativrelatedness

In the swere perforbeyond thaATADs. In Sof gender (asure, the id

variable contrasting mothers and fathers), how many hours perweek on average they drove together, injury in a car crash, andfamiliarity with someone else who had been injured in a car crashwere entered. In Step 2, the two family dimensions were entered.

presAD fcanhat t) = 1as nospectly tbilityr the18

sociosociapanietion tposighe

he thind

ed 2es, an to fto tcoheregrndentheas f

on an, thater dishenndenthe vontrutes assdy 3ute s, eveundtribu, diss to her av

eral

s reics, pCohesion Adaptability

.46*** .48***.15* .28***

.31*** .29***.30*** .30***.40*** .38***

= 10.12 months, SD=5.40) volunteered to participatey. They were recruited via a convenience sampling:nnaires were distributed to an initial sample of univer-llege students from all over Israel, who asked friends,ces, and family members to complete them. The nalsisted of 124 women and 127 men (one participanticate his/her gender), ranging in age from 17 to 21D=0.94). Fifty-eightpercentwereaccompaniedmostlyther, 31% by their mother, 4% by a sibling, and theer individuals (e.g., a neighbor, another family mem-

dure and measuresnts were presented with a packet of questionnairesthree instruments.s assessed by the Attitudes toward Accompanied DrivingS; Taubman - Ben-Ari, 2010a), as described in Study 1.alphas for the current sample were .92 for tension, .75ess, .68 for avoidance, .66 for disapproval, and .74 for

ynamics was assessed by the Family Adaptibility andaluation Scales-III (FACES-III; Olson et al., 1985), a 20-that measures the perceived family cohesiveness andapt to change. Responses were on a 5-point scale rang-almost never) to 5 (almost always). Cronbachs alpha forthe current study was .85, and for adaptability it wasfor each of the two factors were computed by averag-ngs on the items in each domain, with higher scoreshigher perception of either cohesion or adaptability.raphic questionnaire was used to obtain sociodemo-rmation as well as driving data, as described in Study

and discussion

st stage of the analysis, Pearson correlations were con-een the ve ATAD scores and the two perceived familyresults appear in Table 6.6 shows, signicant associations emerged between theoth family cohesion and adaptability were inverselyantly associated with the ATAD factors of tension,disapproval, and anxiety, and were positively and sig-

Table 7ve AT

Ascated tF(9,211Whereboth anicanadaptasion foexplainto thewas asaccomIn relatributewith hness.

In tby theexplainvariablrelatioicantlyhigherfourthindepe17% ofables wcohesibutionto low

In tindepe21% ofically ccontribaspect

Stucontribdrivingwas foity contensiontributeto low

5. Gen

Thidynamssociated with relatedness. Thus, the more positive,d balanced the family is perceived to be, the lower aree ATADs and the higher is the positive dimension of.econd stage of analysis, ve hierarchical regressionsmed to explore the contribution of the family dynamic,t of the sociodemographic variables, to each of thetep 1 of the regression, the sociodemographic variablesdummy variable), age, number of months since licen-

entity of the principal accompanying driver (a dummy

particular,dren, and tTaken togetships betwway young

Positiveangry drividriving of treckless stydriving stylents the regression coefcients for the prediction of theactors.be seen from Table 7, the rst regression indi-he independent variables signicantly predict tension,0.30, p< .001, which explained 32% of the variance.sociodemographic variables contributed signicantly,

ts of family dynamics were found to contribute sig-o the attitude of tension, with higher cohesion andassociated with lower levels of tension. The regres-prediction of relatedness was found to signicantly

% of the variance, F(9,211) =4.87, p< .001. In respectdemographic variables, principal accompanying driverted with relatedness, so that young drivers who wered mostly by their fathers reported higher relatedness.o family dynamics, only adaptability was found to con-itively and signicantly to the attitude of relatedness,r adaptability associated with higher levels of related-

ird regression, avoidance was signicantly predictedependent variables, F(9,211) =5.80, p< .001, which0% of the variance. In respect to the sociodemographicgewas positively associatedwith avoidance,whereas inamily aspects, cohesion was found to contribute signif-he attitude of avoidance of accompanied driving, withsion associated with lower levels of avoidance. In theession, disapproval was signicantly predicted by thet variables, F(9,211) =4.68, p< .001, which explainedvariance. Whereas none of the sociodemographic vari-ound to contribute signicantly to disapproval, bothd adaptability displayed an inverse signicant contri-is, more family cohesion and adaptability contributedapproval.al regression, anxietywas signicantly predicted by thet variables, F(9,211) =6.00, p< .001, which explainedariance.Whereas no sociodemographic variable specif-ibuted, both cohesion and adaptability were found tosignicantly to anxiety, with a higher level of theseociated with lower levels of anxiety.therefore revealed that the degree of balance in familiesignicantly to youngsters perceptions of accompaniedn beyond sociodemographic variables. Specically, itthat higher degrees of both cohesion and adaptabil-te in the regressions to lower negative perceptions ofapproval, and anxiety, and that higher adaptability con-igher relatedness, whereas higher cohesion contributeoidance.

discussion

search examined the associations between familyarenting styles in general, and parental driving styles inas perceived by their adolescent and young adult chil-he youngsters attitudes toward accompanied driving.her, the three studies provide evidence of the relation-een the family climate and parental behaviors and thedrivers perceive the accompanied driving period.relationshipswere foundbetweenparents reckless andng styles and their childrens attitudes to accompaniedension, disapproval, and anxiety. In addition, parentsle was also related to avoidance, as was their anxiouse. In contrast, a higher perception of the parents careful


Table 7Hierarchical regression coefcients (beta weights) for the prediction of ATAD (Study 3).

Tension Relatedness Avoidance Disapproval Anxiety


Step 2Family dyna

CohesionAdaptabili

R2

R2

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

driving wasattitude tow

In respeprincipal acwere mainanxious driproval, whedriving styladdition, mtension, disby the fathATAD. Thession analysdriver, theitension, dising period.careful drivavoidancerent studyon intergenway the pachildrens aticular.

Perceiveto the ATArelated topanied drivand autonolevels of thiety. Respolower avoidalso emerglower respoboth parentIn additionautonomy-lower paterIn additionaccompanieaccompanie

These nemotionalon the partcompetentMoreover, ithe parents

e moothetedrd et

restito m

t ofst aproationindiewer000;t thachilate hons.ceived adto tf relmpahe imhe resionxietygheral, adrive.05 .08

.10 .04onths since licensure .13 .09ompanying driver .02 .22**ber of hours of accompanied driving .12 .06r crash .01 .07h someone hurt in car crash .10 .09

.06 .08**

mics.25** .08

ty .31*** .37***.26*** .10***

.32*** .18***

related to lower levels of tension in the youngstersard accompanied driving.ct to the differences between fathers and mothers ascompanying drivers, it was found that when mothersly responsible for accompanying their children, theirving style was positively related to tension and disap-reas when fathers undertook this role, their anxiouse was related to a higher experience of relatedness. Inothers angry driving style was associated with higherapproval, and anxiety, but an angry style displayeder as the main accompanying driver was unrelated toe ndings were even more pronounced in the regres-es, where when mothers served as the accompanyingr perceived angry driving style was related to higherapproval, and anxiety toward the accompanied driv-In addition, the less fathers were perceived to beers, and served as accompanying drivers, the morewas reported by the young drivers. Though the cur-is correlational in nature, because we are talking hereerational relationships, it might be assumed that therents are perceived as role models may affect theirttitudes toward driving in general, and the ADP in par-

d general parenting styleswere also found to be relatedDS factors. Whereas a more demanding style washigher levels of the negative perceptions of accom-ing of avoidance and disapproval, higher responsivemy-granting parenthood was associated with lowere negative attitudes of tension, disapproval, and anx-nsiveness was associated with higher relatedness and

and thOn theassocia(Howa1990).

Interelatedbe parthe mothis apimposipetentwith fet al., 2suggesparentmunicsituati

Persion anrelatedlevels oof accoiety. Tfrom tily cohand anthat hiapprovyoungance, as well. The importance of the parenting styleed from the regression analyses, which indicated thatnsiveness and higher demandingness on the part ofs contributed to higher avoidance by the young driver., lower maternal responsiveness and lower paternalgranting contributed to an attitude of disapproval, andnal autonomy-granting contributed to higher anxiety., in the case of both avoidance and disapproval, mored driving hours led to lower negative perceptions ofd driving.dings are in line with previous studies indicating that

responsiveness and psychological autonomy-grantingof parents promote the development of a responsible,individual (Nijhof and Engles, 2007; Steinberg, 2001).t has been found that the more accepting and involvedare, the healthier and better adjusted are their children,

As no pedge, the rand measurrent ndingfor furtherthe associatfunctioningamong its mdemands, cmembers aregard of ations.

In respeBen-Ari, 20acterized bavoidance.01 .04 .04

.20* .02 .00

.12 .06 .15.10 .06 .02.07 .05 .08.09 .01 .01.02 .16* .11.11*** .04 .04

.27** -.20* -.26**-.06 -.21* -.20*

.09*** .13*** .17***

.20*** .17*** .21***

re they use effective coping strategies (Shaffer, 2000).r hand, parentteen discordance has been shown to bewith a variety of high risk activities, including violenceal., 1999) and substance abuse (Langhinrichsen et al.,

ngly, the current study found demandingness to beore negative ATADs. Demandingness can be said to

the authoritative parenting style, which is considereddaptive. Previous studies highlight the importance ofch, which combines support for the child with theof limits, for the development of a responsible, com-vidual (e.g., Nijhof and Engles, 2007; Steinberg, 2001)problems of delinquency and violence (e.g., AunolaNijhof and Engles, 2007). However, the current resultst excessive demandingness may adversely affect thed relationship, limiting the parents ability to com-ealthy and adaptive modes of coping with real-life

d family dynamics, reected by the dimensions of cohe-aptability were also found in the current research to behe ATADS factors. Both aspects were related to higheratedness and to lower levels of the negative perceptionsnieddrivingof tension, avoidance,disapproval, andanx-portance of the family dynamic was also evidenced

egression analyses, which indicated that higher fam-contributed to lower tension, avoidance, disapproval,, by the young driver. The regressions also indicatedfamily adaptability contributed to lower tension, dis-

nd anxiety, and to higher relatedness as reported by ther.

revious studies examined, to the best of our knowl-elationship between family cohesion and adaptabilityes related specically to driving, it seems that the cur-s may serve to encourage the use of these dimensionsinvestigations. The important lesson to be learnt fromions between family dynamics and ATAD is that a well-family, which shows a good bonding and involvementembers, that is exible enough to change according to

opes better with the initial stages of driving of its youngs well. Such familial assets serve to enhance positiveccompanied driving, and to inhibit negative percep-

ct to driving in particular, previous studies (Taubman -10a) report that accompanied driving which is char-y the negative attitudes of tension, disapproval, andmay be a precursor of later reckless driving. More


specically, it was found that the more negatively accompanieddriving is perceived, the less careful and courteous the youngdrivers assessment of themselves. In addition, lower disapprovaland tension were also found to be related to a higher percep-tion of reckfound thatditions wasrisk amonga connectioinvolvemenand behavitions foundcharacterist

5.1. Researc

Some limFirst, they rdrivers paris a commonparents andndings usiwasundertatheir ATAD,ceive accomresults indiing a corresas well as sparents driBen-Ari, 20

Secondlylicense forment in traafter the acwould allowThirdly, thethe designthat parentsassumptionsible that ththeir own aindependengraphical anot constituapplicationexaminatio

5.2. Conclu

Despitethe ve ATimportancevide for thetime whenas new drivthey managences, and oMoreover, tthey behavas drivers.the parentsevenmore tcommunicaing. Thus, bsuggested rand parenta

accompanied driving on the other, has important practical impli-cations.

actic

entsed byto drbecohildrthu

nshipwithngwely, aimedn sey topartangings scurrdriv

rovaage ond efavo. If thnts tmig

nces

.S., Wes. SageK., Staegies.H., Hant-imordanH., ShJ. HeaA., SupredN., Culosureon difN., Sthol. BN.,

ng Stemic/n, S.A.,tionshd. Ana, D.E.,rdinglesc. Hrichserews,uth Ad., Tolel. In:Conti, D.R.,ers du691..S., Enof hom.H., Prnesota.H., Rly sys, Advanwichless driving as risky. In contrast, Beck et al. (2005)greater agreement regarding restricted driving con-signicantly associated with decreased teen drivingnewly licensed young drivers. As these studies shown between young drivers attitudes toward parentalt in their driving and a set of reckless driving cognitionsors, they underline the importance of the associa-in the current studies between ATAD and parentalics.

h limitations

itationsof the current series of studies shouldbenoted.elied on self-reports of attitudes and perceptions of theents rather than on parents direct reports. Though thisway to learn about young peoples perceptions of theirhas merits on its own, it is important to replicate the

ng parental reports as well. A rst step in this directionken in a study inwhichyoungdriverswere askedaboutand their parents were asked about the way they per-panied driving in addition to their driving styles. Thecated similar ndings to the currents ndings, show-pondence betweenparents and childrens ATAD scores,ignicant associations between teens ATADs and theirving styles and involvement in car crashes (Taubman -10b)., the participants in both studies had not had a drivingvery long, so it was not possible to examine involve-fc accidents. Further investigations conducted justcompanied driving phase and again some years laterfor the inclusion of this important outcome variable.

conclusionsarediscussed in termsof causality althoughof the studies was correlational, as it was assumedinuence their childrens attitudes and behaviors. Thisshould be taken with a degree of caution, as it is pos-e teens perceptions of their parents are inuenced byttitudes. Fourthly, the research was conducted on threet samples of young drivers drawn from various geo-reas throughout Israel. These samples, however, wereted using representative sampling methods. Thus, theof the results to is limited in away andwarrants furthern.

sions

the limitations, the correlations found here betweenADS factors and parental characteristics indicate theof early parental behaviors and the model they pro-ir children. This model is not evidenced for the rstthey are required to accompany their teenage childreners, but is constructed many years before by the waye the communication strategies, monitoring prefer-ther roles they perform, or should perform, as parents.he quality of their parenting is not limited to the waye as parents, but extends also to the way they behaveChildren watch their parents drive from infancy, and driving styles shape their own driving, sometimeshan the direct messages regarding safe driving parentste to their teenage children during accompanied driv-eyond the theoretical signicance of the ndings, theelationship between parenting styles, family dynamics,l driving styles on the one hand, and attitudes toward

5.3. Pr

Parmodelbeginents totheir cstudiesrelatiocationoffspripositivtions athey caone wawouldthat choffspri

Thepanieddisappadvantdren, aimpactdrivingto pareing, we

Refere

Aiken, Ltion

Aunola,strat

Beck, K.paredisc

Beck, K.Am.

Bianchi,style

Darling,discpers

Darling,Psyc

Darling,entiacad

FergusoRelaAcci

HowardregaAdo

LanghinAndJ. Yo

Lotan, TIsraeFour

Mayhewdriv683

Nijhof, Ksion

Olson, DMin

Olson, Dfami(Ed.)Greeal implications

should be made aware of the fact that their behavior istheir offspring, probably long before they themselves

ive. This heightened awareness might encourage par-me positivemodels, leading theway to safer driving byen, as well as by themselves. The ndings of the currents highlight the possibility that if parents improve theirs with their teen offspring, care for better communi-them, and pay more attention to careful driving, theirill be inclined to regard the initial phases of drivingmorend eventually become a safer driver. Specic interven-at encouraging parents to drive more carefully so thatrve as good role models for their teen drivers could beachieve this target. There is a good chance that parentsicipate in such an effort, particularly if it were stressedng their driving behavior might ultimately make theirafer drivers.ent ndings also suggest that more hours of accom-ing contribute to lower attitudes of avoidance andl. This indicates a need to encourage parents to takef every opportunity they have to drive with their chil-

ven to create such opportunities, as quantity appears torably on more positive attitudes toward accompaniedis recommendation could be combined with messageso serve as positive role models to their childrens driv-ht gain a genuine change in safe driving.

st, S.G., 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-, Newbury Park, CA.ttin, H., Nurmi, J., 2000. Parenting style and adolescents achievementJ. Adolesc. 23, 205222.rtos, J.L., Simons-Morton, B.G., 2005. Parent-teen disagreement ofposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: isce related to risky teen driving? Prev. Sci. 6, 177185.attuck, T., Raleigh, R., 2001. Parental predictors of teen driving risk.lth Behav. 25, 1020.mmala, H., 2004. The genetics of driving behavior: Parents drivingicts their childrens driving style. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36, 655659.msille, P., Caldwell, L., Dowdy, B., 2006. Predictors of adolescentsto parents and perceived parental knowledge: between- and within-ferences. J. Youth Adolesc. 35, 667678.einberg, L., 1993. Parenting style in context: an integrative model.ull. 113, 487496.Toyokawa, T., 1997. Construction and Validation of the Par-yle Inventory (PSI-II): Revised Edition, http://inside.bard.edu/specialproj/darling/lab/psiii.pdf.Williams, A.F., Chapline, J.F., Reinfurt, D.W., De Leonardis, D.M., 2001.ip of parent driving records to the driving records of their children.l. Prev. 33, 229234.Cross, S.I., Xiaoming, L., Huang, W., 1999. Parent-youth concordanceviolence exposure: relationship to youth psychosocial functioning. J.ealth 25, 396406.n, J., Lichtenstein, E., Seeley, J.R., Hops, H., Ary, D.V., Tildesley, E.,J., 1990. Parent-adolescent congruence for adolescent substance use.olesc. 19, 623635.

do, T., 2007. A novel program to enhance safety for young drivers inProceedings of the 14th International Conference on Road Safety onnents , Bangkok, Thailand.Simpson, H.M., Pak, A., 2003. Changes in collision rates among novicering the rst months of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35,

gles, R.C.M.E., 2007. Parenting style, coping strategies, and the expres-esickness. J. Adolesc. 30, 709720.

tner, J., Lavee, Y., 1985. FACES III. Family Social Science, University of, St. Paul, MN.ussell, C.S., Sprenkle, D.H., 1980. Circumplex model of marital andtems II: empirical studies and clinical intervention. In: Vincent, J.P.nces in Family Intervention, Assessment, and Theory, vol. 1. JAI Press,, CT, pp. 129179.


Seligman,M.,Darling, R.B., 1997.OrdinaryFamilies Special Children, 2nded.GuilfordPress, New York.

Shaffer, D.R., 2000. Social and Personality Development. Wadsworth, Belmon.Simons-Morton, B.G., 2007. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: rationale,

evidence of effects, and potential for enhancing graduated driver licensing effec-tiveness. J. Saf. Res. 38, 193202.

Simons-Morton, B.G., Hartos, J.L., Beck, K.H., 2003. Persistence of effects of a briefintervention on parental restrictions of teen driving privileges. Injury Prev. 9,142146.

Simons-Morton, B., Quimet, M.C., 2006. Parent involvement in novice teen driving:a review of the literature. Injury Prev. 12, 130137.

Steinberg, L., 2001. We know some things: parent-adolescent relationships in ret-rospect and in prospect. J. Res. Adolesc. 11, 119.

Taubman -Ben-Ari, O., 2010a. Youngdrivers attitudes toward accompanieddriving:a new multidimensional measure. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 10091017.

Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., 2010b. Attitudes toward accompanied driving: the views ofteens and their parents. Transport. Res. Part F 13, 269276.

Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., 2004. The multidimensionaldriving style inventory scale construct and validation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36,323332.

Taubman - Ben-Ari, O., Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., 2005. From parents to children similarity in parents and offspring driving styles. Transport. Res. Part F 8, 1929.

Vanlaar,W.,Mayhew,D.,Marcoux, K.,Wets, G., Brijs, T., Shope, J., 2009.Anevaluationof graduated driver licensing programs in North America using meta-analyticapproach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 11041111.

Williams, A.F., 2007. Contribution of the components of graduated licensing to crashreduction. J. Saf. Res. 38, 177184.

Wilson, R.J., Meckle, W., Wiggins, S., Cooper, P.J., 2006. Young driver risk in relationto parents retrospective driving record. J. Saf. Res. 37, 325332.

The contribution of perceived parental and familial characteristics to attitudes toward accompanied driving among young dr...1 Introduction2 Study 12.1 Method2.1.1 Participants2.1.2 Procedure and measures

2.2 Results and discussion

3 Study 23.1 Method3.1.1 Participants3.1.2 Procedure and measures


4 Study 34.1 Method4.1.1 Participants4.1.2 Procedure and measures


5 General discussion5.1 Research limitations5.2 Conclusions5.3 Practical implications

References

1-s2.0-s0001457511000820-main

Documents