Relation of Parent-Teen Agreement on

Restrictions to Teen Risky Driving Over

9 Months
Kenneth H. Beck, PhD, FAAHB; Jessica L. Hartos, PhD
Bruce G. Simons-Morton, EdD, MPH, FAAHB
Objectives: To determine the
relations among parent-teen discordance for restrictions on driving conditions, driving rules, and
consequences for rule violations
at licensure and suhsequent risky
teen driving. Methods: Parents
and teens completed telephone
interviews at 1 , 4 , and 9 months
after teens became licensed. Results: At each time interval, the
degree of disagreement with parent restrictions on driving conditions was positively associated

with teen risky driving. Conclusions: These results demonstrate

a positive association between
parent-teen discordance for driving conditions and teen risky driving. Initial establishment of restrictions and agreement with
them may have longer term protective effects against teen driving risk.
Key words: adolescent driving,
parenting, restrictions, discordance

are higher than those of any other agegroup2 and are elevated when teens drive
on weekends, with teen passengers, and
at nighttime.3-'
A growing body of evidence indicates
that parents can play a crucial role in
reducing the level of teen driving risk."'^
Several investigations'^'* have found that
teens who report high levels of parental
monitoring and driving restrictions are
less likely to engage in a variety of risky
driving behaviors and are more likely to
report fewer violations and crashes than
are those with fewer restrictions and less
monitoring. Further, parents who report
frequently supervising their teens' driving and restricting access to a car have
teens who report less speeding and more
seat-belt use.''
Overall, the research suggests that
parent and teen reports of parental management of teen driving is related to
greater teen driver safety. However, teens
usually report fewer restrictions than do

otor vehicle crashes are the lead

ing cause of death and injury
among adolescents between the
ages of 15 and 20. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2002, there were over
1.8 million crashes and over 8200 persons killed in crashes involving 1 5 - 2 0
year old drivers.' Adolescent crash rates
Kenneth H. Beck, Professor, Department of
Public and Community Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Jessica L. Hartos, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Behavior
and Administration, College of Health and Human Services, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC.
Bruce G. Simons-Morton, Chief, Prevention Research Branch, DESPR/NICHD/NIH, Bethesda,
MD.
Address correspondence to Dr Beck, Department of Public and Community Health, University of Maryland, 2366 Health & Human Performance Building, College Park, MD 20742-2611.
E-mail: kbeckl@umd.edu
Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

533

Teen Risky Driving Over 9 Months

their parents. For example. Beck et al^

noted evidence of low levels of parentteen agreement regarding certain driving restrictions. For instance, although
parents and their teens generally agreed
when the teen was allowed unsupervised
access to a car at least once a week or
more (93%), they were less likely to agree
when reporting on whether the teen's
driving privileges had ever been restricted
for violating a family driving rule (49%) or
if the parent rode with the teen in the last
month (62%). Low levels of parent-teen
agreement were also detected regarding
driving rules (eg, restrictions on the number and types of passengers allowed in the
car when the teen is driving, whether the
teen was allowed to drive in bad weather),
how often parents taught teens certain
driving skills (eg, how to avoid being an
aggressive driver, how to drive safely at
night), and whether the teen had actually
engaged in a variety of risky driving activities (eg, being distracted by friends
and passengers while driving, going to
dangerous places, driving too fast). In
addition to reporting fewer driving rules
and restrictions, teens also reported engaging in more risky driving activities
such as speeding, going to dangerous
places, driving aggressively than their
parents were awaire of."
The larger literature on adolescence
indicates that parent and teen disagreements about parenting behaviors are common. Research shows that parents and
adolescents differ in their reporting of
family rules,^' the amount of conflict,^^
and the amount of perceived family cohesion, power, communication, adaptability, andflexibility.^^'^*Parents and adolescents also disagree about parenting behaviors,^^'^^ as well as adolescent behaviors.^*'^' Some studies have found that
parents are underaware of adolescent
risky behaviors, such as alcohol consumption^" or suicide attempts.^' One study^^
found that as mothers were more aware of
their adolescents' stressors and communicated with them more often, their adolescents reported better psychological
adjustment.
In addition, previous research has
shown that parent-teen discordance is
associated with a variety^ of high-risk
activities, including teen violence ,^^ substance use,^" sexual behavior,^^'^* and academic achievement.^'^ Whereas parentteen discordance may to some extent be

534

normative and not always related to increased risk, research suggests that parental rules and regulations are more
effective when teens perceive that their
parents have established expectations
for their behaviors and consequences for
any violations.^^ This appears to be especially true for more serious (ie, potentially life-threatening or immediately
harmful) behaviors such as drug and alcohol use or sexual activity, than for more
mundane issues such as the teen's style
of clothing or the type and volume of
music they listen to.
This has implications for when teens
first become licensed drivers. Parentchild relationships are changing during
this time. Parents and adolescents share
fewer activities and spend less time together than they did during childhood.^'''"'
In addition, parents and teens report
higher levels of conflict,"'"^ which tends to
peak during middle adolescence,"*''^ just
around the time when most teens are
thinking of becoming licensed. However,
this is the time when parents have to
impose new sets of rules and restrictions
on a new behaviordriving. If such restrictions are not perceived to be in effect,
parents may be less effective at reducing
driving risk during the initial period of
licensure when teens are at their greatest likelihood for crash involvement.''""^''^
Although parents initially report fairly
high levels of intended driving restrictions for their teens' independent driving, reports of actual restrictions after
licensure tend to be at lower levels.'^ A
recent investigation"''^" showed that it is
possible to increase the actual limits that
parents place on their teens' driving privileges by using a brief intervention that
promoted the use of a parent-teen driving
agreement along with examples of how to
set restrictions on teen driving at the
time of licensure. Parents and teens
exposed to this intervention were more
likely to report using a driving agreement
for up to 9 months and to report passenger
and road restrictions for up to 4 months,
compared to an unexposed control group.
The level of teen-reported risky driving
was not related to this intervention; however, when we compared the degree of
agreement between parents and their
teens concerning the conditions under
which teens could drive (eg, after dark,
with no teen passengers), the driving
rules that parents set (eg, wear a seat belt

Beck et al

at all times, call home if plans change),

and the consequences for violating these
rules (eg, driving privileges would be reduced or taken away if teen got pulled over
for a ticket, did not call home), we found
that lack of agreement on these measures was related to teens' reported risky
driving (eg, how many times they exceeded the speed limit, drove without
wearing a seat belt) during the previous
month.^' Specifically, the degree of disagreement (discordance) concerning driving conditions and consequences for rule
violations predicted risky driving in the
first month of the teen's licensure. The
less agreement between parents and their
teens regarding the conditions under
which they were allowed to drive (and to a
lesser extent the consequences for violating these conditions), the more likely
teens were to report driving in a risky
manner. Thus, if parents and teens had
higher initial agreement on the restrictions concerning when, where and with
whom teens can drive (ie, driving conditions), they were less likely to report
engaging in risky driving in their first
month of licensure.
The purpose of this investigation was
to determine if this relationship extended
over time. We performed follow-up assessments of teen risky driving at 4 and
9 months post licensure to determine if
the relationship between parent and teen
discordance for driving conditions and
consequences observed at 1 month would
predict subsequent risky driving over a
longer period of driving exposure.
METHOD
Participants
This investigation was part of a larger
randomized trial that evaluated the effects of an education program that encouraged parents to set and maintain
driving restrictions for their newly licensed teens."''5 In the trial, parents and
teens were recruited at a motor vehicle
administration (MVA) office at the time
the teen successfully tested for a provisional driver's license allowing independent driving (except for between the hours
of midnight to 5 AM as specified by Maryland law at that time). Each week was
randomly assigned to the intervention or
control condition, and all the families
recruited that week received the same
treatment. The intervention included a
video with captions that parents watched
Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

in the waiting area of the MVA (and took

home with them). The video presented
the risks of teen driving, introduced the
name of the intervention program
("Checkpoints"), and featured the use of a
parent-teen driving agreement that demonstrated parents and teens using it successfully. The video encouraged parents
to adopt this agreement and suggested
how relatively strict driving restrictions
(eg, preventing any teen passengers when
the teen is driving) could be initially
adopted and subsequently relaxed as their
teens gain more driving experience and
demonstrate more responsible behavior.
After watching the video, parents were
provided a copy of this parent-teen driving
agreement. One week later, parents were
sent a newsletter reminder that encouraged them to use the driving agreement.
Parents in the control condition received
only those materials that were normally
available at the MVA. In both conditions,
parents were interviewed at baseline (recruitment) and parents and teens were
interviewed separately at 1, 4, and 9
months post licensure.
Recruiters approached 756 eligible parent-adolescent dyads, and 87% (658 parent-adolescent dyads) agreed to take part
in the larger study. Of those recruited,
447 were interviewed at all 3 time periods. Demographic data at baseline indicated that of the parents, 97% were the
adolescents' biological parents, 60% mothers and 40% fathers; and 83% were European American, 7% Asian American, 4%
Latin American, and 4% African American. Most of the parents (72%) were 45
years of age or older, 88% were married,
69% worked full-time, 76% had a 4-year
college education or higher, and 85% had
an annual household income of over
$70,000. MSN Home Advisor^^ listed the
median household income at that time
for the Maryland suburban area that the
MVA site serves as $76,421. Of their
adolescents, 49.5% (326) were male and
50.5% (332) were female. All were 16
years old, with 61% under 16 years 6
months, and 53% reported an A grade point
average. Most adolescents (81%) were
white, 8% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 5%
African American. There were no demographic differences between the treatment
and control group. At 9 months, more parent-teen dyads were retained in the control group (81.7%) than the intervention
group (72%), x^ (1, N=579) = 7.14, P<.05.

535

Teen Risky Driving Over 9 Months

Table 1
Frequency of Teen Risky Driving Behaviors
Ever Performed in Last 30 Days

Risky Driving Behavior'

Went through an intersection - light was tuming yellow
Exceeded speed limit in residential - school zones
Read, eat, talked on cell phone, put on makeup, horsed around
w/ passengers
Switched lanes to weave through slower traffic
Went through a stop sign without stopping completely
Drove 10-19 miles/hour over the speed limit
Played radio so loudly that couldn't hear other vehicle horns/sirens
Went through an intersection - light was tuming red
Drove in a way to show off to other people
Drove without making all passengers wear seat belts
Drove 20+ miles/hour over the speed limit
Raced another vehicle, even for short distances
Tailgated another vehicle
Drove without wearing a seat belt
Drove after drinking alcohol or using illegal drugs
Mean # Risky Driving Behaviors - past 30 days
Mean # Days Driving - past 30 days (exposure)

Month 1

Month 4

Month 9

83.7
50,8

88,8
55,9

88.6
61.7

46.3
44.3
34,2
34.5
20.1
7,8
8,7
6,9
6,7
6,9
4,3
2,7
,4
3.58
19.10

62.2
53.5
41,8
44,5
23,7
10,5
10,5
12,8
12,3
9,4
9,4
5.8
1,6
4,42
22.37

64,2
62,4
41.4
49,0
25,5
16,1
9.4
12.3
15.4
10.5
10,3
1.1
.9
4.75
23.00

Note.
a n = 447

Procedures
The adolescent and an accompanying
parent (if 2, the one who would be primarily responsible for driving management)
were asked to participate in a program to
"check up" on newly licensed adolescent
drivers. As teens completed paperwork for
the MVA, parents completed a baseline
survey that took approximately 10-15
minutes to coftiplete. One, 4, and 9 months
later, parents and their teens were contacted by telephone and interviewed separately. Each interview took approximately
20 minutes. Provisions were made to
ensure that all responses would not be
interpretable to anybody listening. Participation was voluntary, and parental consent and adolescent assent were obtained
according to procedures approved by the
Institutional Review Boards of the University of Maryland and the National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development.
Measures
The principal dependent measure, teen

536

risky driving, was measured by asking

teens on how many of the past 30 days
they engaged in a variety of risky driving
behaviors (Table 1). The response distributions to these items were highly
skewed; therefore, each item was treated
as a dichotomous variable, with teens
classified as ever (versus never) having
engaged in these behaviors in the past
month. A composite index of risky teen
driving was formed by summing the number of items that were ever reported.
Scores could range from 0 (never did any
of the 15 risky behaviors) to 15 (ever did
all of the 15 behaviors). This measure
was internally consistent (a = .71) and
comparable across gender. This onedimensional composite index of teen risky
driving, adapted from the work by
Donovan,^^ has been used in our previous
research with young drivers.'*' It has
been validated through a series of item
and factor analyses. This measure was
obtained from teens at 1, 4, and 9 months.
Driving exposure was measured by a

Beck et al

Table 2
Restricted Driving Conditions

% who said teen was never allowed to drive:

Without parents
Outside of local areas
Without telling where going
After dark
Without identifying other riders
Without telling time of return
On high speed roads
Without asking permission
With 1 teen passenger
With 2+ teen passengers
Between 10pm - midnight
After midnight
In bad weather

Tenn

Parent

Parent-Teen
Discordance"

6,5

7.2
65.5
87,2
17.9
80,5
84.6
46.3
91.5
32.9
65.8
48,1
98.0
54,6

62.5
45.1
20.0
60,0
23.6
14,6
55,6
10,5
44.2
34.0
40,5
4,6
49.2

48.5
78.5
13,0
71.4
83.4
32.0
88.8
25.1
50.6
37.1
94.4
41.2

Note.
a percent of time when parent said never and teen said ever.

single item that asked on how many of

the last 30 days the teen drove a car. This
measure was obtained from teens at 1,4,
and 9 months (Table 1).
Discordance for each of the following
variables (ie, restricted driving conditions,
driving rules, and driving consequences)
was identical to our previous study^' and
was defmed by calculating the amount of
disagreement between parent and teen
responses for each measure. As disagreement between parents and teens increased, discordance scores became
higher (reflecting more disagreement with
parental restrictions). These measures
were obtained from parents and teens at
1 month.
Restricted driving conditions was measured by asking teens and parents on how
many days in the last month the teen was
allowed to drive under 13 different driving
conditions (Table 2). As a set, the internal
consistency for both the teen (a = .75) and
parent measures (a = .73) was comparable. In this sample, the average degree
of discordance across all of these driving
conditions was 35.7%, and ranged from
62.5% (never being allowed to drive without parents in the vehicle) to 4.6% (not
being allowed to drive after midnight). A
composite index was obtained by summing the number of these conditions in
Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

which parents and their teens were discordant (ie, parent says teen was never [0
days] allowed to drive, but teens said they
were). Discordance scores ranged from 0
(complete agreement on all of these restrictions) to 13 (maximum disagreement
on all of these restrictions) and averaged
7.37 (SD = 2.63).
Driving rules was measured by a series
of items that asked parents and teens to
what extent (on a scale from 1 to 10, with
1 being "definitely no" and 10 being "definitely yes") parents expected teens to
follow safe driving practices (Table 3).
These measures also had comparable
internal consistency for teens (a = .77)
and parents (a = .88). Discordance was
defined as the mean absolute difference
between the parent and teen scores across
all of these items. Scores could range
from 0 (complete parent-teen agreement
with each driving rule; ie, parent said,
"definitely no"= 1 and teen said, "definitely no"= 1 ) to 9 (maximum disagreement across all these rules, ie, parent
said, "definitely no"= 1 and teen said,
"definitely yes"=10), and averaged .80 (SD
= 1.05) across all these rules.
Driving consequences was measured by
asking teens and parents if parents would
reduce or take away driving privileges (on
a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 being "defi-

537

Teen Risky Driving Over 9 Months

Table 3
Driving Rules

Mean degree that teen was expected to:

Obey all traffic laws and signs
Wear a seat belt at all times
Have passengers always wear seat belts
Get permission for each trip
Tell parents where they are going
Tell parents who passengers are
Tell parents when they are expected home
Call home if they are going to be late
Call home if their plans change
Call if they can't get home safely
Never use alcohol/drugs when they drive
Never ride with a driver who used drugs/alcohol
Never drive aggressively

Teen

Parent

Parent-Teen
Difference

9.37
9.86
9.65
9.20
9.41
8.62
9.17
9.38
9.00
9.62
9.80
9.73
9.46

9.80
9.94
9.63
9.53
9.65
9.20
9.56
9.68
9.47
9.59
9.72
9.64
9.55

.43
.20
.62
1.00
.76
1.58
1.05
.83
1.25
.67
.48
.61
.89

Note.
Each item used a 1 - 10 scale, with 1 being "definitely no" and 10 being "definitely yes."

nitely no" and 10 being "definitely yes") if

teens engaged in a variety of unsafe
driving practices (Table 4). These measures also had comparable internal con-

sistency for teens (a = .89) and parents (a

= .91). Discordance was defined as the
mean absolute difference betv^^een the
parent and teen scores across all of these

Table 4
Driving Consequences

Mean likelihood that driving privileges would

be reduced or taken away if teens:
Got a ticket
Not wear a seat belt
Not have passengers wear a seat belt
Not get permission for a trip
Not say where they were going
Not identify passengers
Not telling parents when they would retum
Not call home when they going to be late
Not call home when their plans had changed
Not call when they couldn't get home safely
Drove after using alcohol/drugs
Rode with a driver who used alcohol/drugs
Drove aggressively

Teen

Parent

Parent-Teen
Difference

8.33
7.39
7.36
7.93
7.92
6.82
7.84
8.23
7.55
8.79
9.82
9.57
8.48

8.79
9.04
8.95
8.93
8.88
8.40
9.02
9.09
8.80
9.32
9.75
9.54
9.35

1.89
2.59
2.73
2.11
2.05
2.81
2.17
1.97
2.33
1.57
.43
.82
1.67

Note.
Each item used a 1 - 10 scale, with 1 being "definitely no" and 10 being "definitely yes."

538

Beck et al

Table 5
Standardized Regression (Beta) Coefficients of Predictors
of Teen Risky Driving
Teen Risky Driving
Predictor Variable

Month 1

Month 4

Month 9

Restricted Driving Conditions

Driving Rules
Driving Consequences
Driving Exposure (past 30 days)
Treatment Group
Teen Gender (male)
Parent Gender (female)

.431***
ns
.133**
.127**

.320***
ns
ns
.147**
ns
ns
ns
.203***

.262***
ns
ns
.224***

R2

ns
.082*
-.099*
.326***

ns
ns
ns
.177***

Note.
* P<.05. ** P<.01. ** P<.001

items. Scores could range from 0 (complete parent-teen agreement with all of
these rules) to 9 (maximum disagreement across all these consequences) and
averaged 1.93 (SD = 1.47) across all consequences. The measures used in this
investigation were adapted from our program of research on young drivers'* and
may be obtained by contacting the last
author.
Analyses
A series of multiple regression analyses was used to predict teen risky driving
at 1, 4, and 9 months. In each analysis,
the predictor set included the discordance
measures related to restricted driving
conditions, driving rules, and driving consequences. In addition, the driving exposure measure pertinent to each time
period was included along with the dichotomous variables of teen gender, parent gender, and treatment condition. This
was the same analytic approach as used
previously. 5'
RESULTS
As shown in Table 1, the frequency of
risky driving increased over time. The
mean number of risky driving behaviors
committed increased significantly (P< .05)
from 1 month (M =3.58) to 4 months (M =
4.42), but did not increase significantly at
9 months (M = 4.75). However, by 9
months, the number of teens who reported that they went through an interAm J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

section when the light was turning red,

drove 20 or more miles over the speed
limit, tailgated another vehicle, drove
without using a seat belt, and drove after
drinking alcohol or using illegal drugs
had more than doubled compared to 1
month. The frequency of risky driving at
1 month was highly correlated with risky
driving at 4 months (r = .70, P< .001) and
9 months (r = .58, P< .001). Risky driving
at 4 months was highly correlated with
risky driving at 9 months (r = .72, P< .001).
There were no differences across parent gender for any of the discordance
measures. However for teens, consistent
with our previous analysis,^' males were
more discordant than females for restricted driving conditions (means = 7.78
vs 6.97, t = 3.23, P<.01) and driving rules
(means = .95 vs .66, t = 2.92, P<.01).
A series of multiple regression analyses was performed using the discordance
measures of driving conditions, driving
rules, and driving consequences to predict teen driving risk at 1,4, and 9 months
(Table 5). In addition, the driving exposure measure at each month, treatment
group, and teen and parent gender were
included in regressions. Simultaneous
entry was used, allowing the beta weights
to refiect the ability of each variable to
account for unique variance in the teen
risky driving measure, after adjusting for
the effects of the other variables in the
model. The results showed that teen
risky driving at each time period was

539

Teen Risky Driving Over 9 Months

related to discordance for restricted driving conditions and driving exposure. Because the treatment group had significantly (P<.05) less discordance than the
control group for restricted driving conditions and driving consequences, separate regression analyses also tested a
model that included treatment group by
restricted driving conditions and treatment group by driving consequences interaction terms. No evidence of a significant higher order effect was found.
DISCUSSION
This is the first study to examine the
relation between parent-teen discordance
concerning parent-imposed driving restrictions and subsequent adolescent
risky driving over a 9-month interval.
The results of this investigation indicated that the degree of parent-teen disagreement about the conditions under
which teens were allowed to drive in the
first month predicted subsequent risky
driving 9 months later. The degree of
disagreement concerning driving rules
(eg, "Call home if you will be late") and the
consequences for violating these rules
were not predictive of subsequent risky
driving. This suggests that initial agreement concerning when, where, and with
whom a teen may drive a car is more
important at reducing subsequent risk
than is a shared understanding of what
the specific driving rules are or how they
might be enforced.
There was much less relative agreement between parents and teens concerning restricted driving conditions than
the driving rules and consequences. Most
parents (over 80%) said that their teens
had to tell them where the teens were
going, identify who their passengers would
be, tell their time of return, ask permission beforehand; and most parents prohibited their teens from driving after
midnight. On these particular restrictions, there was relatively less disagreement than when parents said their teens
could not drive outside of local areas, after
dark, on high speed roads, with 1 or more
teen passengers, and in bad weather.
This suggests that parents are relatively
less likely to set restrictions on, as well as
to achieve teen-agreement with, those
driving conditions that have a greater
impact on teen driving risk. Although
restrictions and teen agreement were
higher for such activities as asking per-

540

mission to leave, identifying the destinations, and coming home before the designated curfew, these activities may relate
more to acceptance of generalized parental authority than to traffic-specific risk
reduction. Discordance is lower for those
conditions that can be easily verified by
the parent (eg, getting permission to drive,
coming home late or after curfew, identifying who the passengers will be in advance) as opposed to those that are less
verifiable (eg, driving on high speed roads,
outside of local areas, and with multiple
passengers). One implication is that
greater emphasis should be placed on
how parents can establish and monitor
teen compliance with driving restrictions
that are less likely to be observed directly
by the parent.
As expected, teen driving exposure and
risk taking increased over time. It is not
surprising that there was a significant
increase in risky driving between months
1 and 4, but not between months 4 and 9.
The first 4 months of independent driving
is a critical period for teens and denotes
the necessity of relatively strong supervision and restriction of their driving privileges during this time. The high correlation of risky driving between each time
interval also suggests that once a pattern
of risk is established, it tends to continue
at least over the first several months.
This initial increase in risky driving may
indicate greater teen confidence in driving, a greater likelihood for experimentation, and/or greater driving exposure over
time. Regardless of the reasons that
teens increase their level of risky driving
during this time period, the "Checkpoints
Program" showed that it is possible to
develop a brief intervention to encourage
parents to restrict (and progressively relax) the driving privileges of their teens
during this period.'"^
This program also produced a significant increase in parent-teen agreement
(ie, lower discordance) concerning the
driving conditions under which teens can
operate a motor vehicle.^^ Although the
treatment group had no direct effect on
the frequency of reported teen risk taking, its effect appears to have been mediated through increasing parent-teen
agreement on the restrictions set for
teen driving conditions. Although explicit
cause-effect conclusions cannot be drawn
from these data, our findings suggest that
the degree of parent-teen discordance

Beck et al

about the conditions under which a teen

is permitted to drive may underlie a teen's
tendency to engage in risky driving, at
least over the first 9 months. This indicates a need for parents to communicate
an explicit set of expectations that directly reduce the high risk conditions
under which teens are prone to drive.
The "Checkpoints" intervention^^^o was
designed to accomplish this and appears
to have been successful in this regard.
The effectiveness of parent-child communication might be increased by providing specific tools (eg, a parent-teen driving agreement) which allow parental expectations to be explicitly stated. They
also provide for a mechanism whereby
parental-teen communication occurs, as
these rules and restrictions are being
discussed and codified. Thus, parentteen discordance may arise from poor
communication because parental expectations have not been made explicit. However, it is unclear if discordance is due
mostly to parent or teen perceptions. That
is, do teens under perceive what their
parents are telling them, or do parents
tend to over report what they tell their
teens? It is not possible to determine
which of these scenarios is more likely
from our investigation. However, it seems
reasonable to assume that both tendencies are operative. A structured parentchild agreement may help to reduce both
types of distortions as it establishes a
recorded agreement of what driving rules
and consequences are. Future research
should determine if explicit parent-teen
contracts decrease the tendencies for
discordance. Evidence also indicates that
states with graduated driver licensing
laws requiring beginning drivers to pass
through 3 distinct phases (permit, provisional, arid unrestricted license) have
parents who are more prone to establish
and enforce adolescent driving restrictions than are states without such laws.^*
Future research should examine the interplay between policy and parental practice and determine whether parent-teen
discordance varies by states with stricter
or more lenient teen licensing policies.
The findings are consistent with the
hypothesis that greater parent-teen concordance about parent-imposed driving
restrictions is protective against teen
risky driving. Although the relative importance of this tended to diminish over
time, the greater the initial discordance
Am J Health Behav."^ 2006;30(5):533-543

between parents and teens concerning

driving conditions the more teens were
apt to drive in a risky fashion for up to 9
months. However, in this investigation,
it was not possible to examine the changes
in parent-teen concordance over time.
This would have allowed us the opportunity to track how changes in parent-teen
concordance associate with teen risky
driving at each time interval. Unfortunately, issues of cost and respondent burden precluded our ability to include these
measures in our follow-up telephone interviews. However, future research should
examine the evolving and fiuid nature of
parent-imposed restrictions and parentteen concordance regarding them and
relate these to longer term measures of
teen risk taking.
Limitations
Finally, as we previously acknowledge,^^
our sample was derived from a fairly affiuent, suburban area of Maryland. Thus,
the extent to which our findings can be
generalized to other populations of teens
and their parents is unknown. It is possible that the extent of teen risky driving
may be lower in less affiuent communities, where access to an automobile might
be more limited. Clearly, there is a need
to replicate this investigation in more
diverse settings. Parents and teens from
lower income as well as inner-city areas
may have less access to automobiles and
enjoy fewer driving privileges. These
teens initially may develop different driving patterns and experience somewhat
different parental influence regarding
their driving rules, conditions, and consequences. Likewise, teens in more rural and remote areas may develop different driving patterns due to their earlier
and more frequent exposure to driving in
less congested areas. Finally, self-report
measures are always prone to a certain
degree of social desirability bias. Although provisions were taken to ensure
that all the responses to the telephone
interviews would not be interpretable to
anyone who happened to be listening (ie,
parents could not understand the meaningfulness of the teens' responses as they
could not hear the questions being asked),
we still do not know the degree to which
misreporting occurred. Future research
should address this problem by examining the relationship between parental
discordance and more objective measures

541

Teen Risky Driving Over 9 Months

of teen driving risk, as revealed in the
teen's driving record and through the use
of direct observation of the parent's and
teen's behavior.
Acknowledgment
Support from the Maryland Department
of Transportation, State Highway Administration; Cooperation of the Maryland
Motor Vehicle Administration. Portions of
these data were presented at the 3"* annual meeting of the American Academy
of Health Behavior. St. Augustine, Fla,
2003.

REFERENCES
1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. TrafTic Safety Facts 2002 - Young Drivers.
Available
at
http://wwwfars.nhtsa.dot.gov/. Accessed July 23, 2004.
2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). Motor vehicle safetya 20"^ century
public health achievement. MMWR.
1999;48:369-374.
3.Chen L, Baker SP, Braver ER, Li G. Carrying
passengers as a risk factor for crashes fatal to
16- and 17-year-old drivers. JAMA.
2000:283(12):1578-1618.
4.Doherty ST, Andrey JC, MacGregor C. The
situational risks of young drivers: the influence of passengers, time of day and day of
week on accident rates. Accid Anal Prev.
1998;30(l):45-52.
5.Farrow JA. Young driver risk taking: a description of dangerous driving situations
among 16- to 19-year-old drivers. Int J Addict.
1987;22(12):1255-1267.
6.Preusser DF, Ferguson SA, Williams AF. The
effects of teenage passengers on the fatal
crash risk of teenage drivers. Accid Anal Prev.
1998;30:217-222.
7.Ulmer RG, Williams AF, Preusser DF. Crash
involvements of 16-year-old drivers. J Safety
Res. 1997;28(2):97-103.
8.Williams AF. Nighttime driving and fatal crash
involvement of teenagers. Acdd Anal Prev.

() i

9.Williams AF. Teenage drivers: patterns of

risk. J Safety Res. 2003;34(l):5-15.
lO.WUliams AF, Ferguson SA. Rationale for graduated hcensing and the risks it should address. Inj Prev. 2002; 8(Suppl II):ii9-iil6.
11.Beck KH, Hartos JL, Simons-Morton BG.
Adolescent driving risk: the promise of parental influence and public policy. Health Ekluc
Behav. 2002;29(l):71-82.
12.Hartos JL, Beck KH, Simons-Morton BG.
Parents' limits on adolescents approaching
unsupervised driving. J Adolesc Res.
2004;19(6):591-606.
13.Preusser DF, Williams AF, Lund AK. Parental role in teenage driving. J Youth Adolesc.
1985;14(2):73-84.

542

14.Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL, Leaf WA. Promoting parental management of teen driving.
Inj Prev. 2002;8(Suppl II):ii24-ii31.
15.Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL. How well do
parents manage young driver crash risks? J
Safety Res. 2003;34(l):91-97.
16.Hartos JL, Eitel P, Haynie D L, SimonsMorton BG. Can I take the car? Relations
among parenting practices and adolescent
problem driving practices. J Adolecs Res.
2000;15(3):352-367.
17.Hartos JL, Eitel P, Simons-Morton BG. Do
parent-imposed delayed licensure and restricted driving reduce risky driving behaviors among newly-licensed adolescents? Prev
Sci. 2001;2(2):l 11-120.
18.Hartos JL, Eitel P, Simons-Morton BG.
PEirenting practices and adolescent risky driving: a three-month prospective study. Health
Educ Behav. 2002;29(2): 194-206.
19.Beck KH, Shattuck T, Raleigh R. Parental
predictors of teen driving risk. Am J Health
Behav. 2001;25(l):10-20.
2O.Beck KH, Shattuck T, Raleigh R. A comparison of teen perceptions and parental reports
of influence on driving risk. Am J Health
Behav. 2001;25(4):376-387.
21.Jessop DJ. Family relationships as viewed by
parents and adolescents: a specification. J
Marriage Fam. 1981;43:95-107.
22.Larson R, Ham M. Stress and "storm and
stress" in early adolescence: the relationship
of negative events with dysphoric attitude.
Dev Psychoi. 1993;29:130-140.
23.Barnes HL, Olson DH. Parent-adolescent
communication and the circumplex model.
Child Dev. 1985;56:438-447.
24.Noller P, Callan VJ. Adolescent and parent
perceptions of family cohesion and adaptability. J Adolesc. 1986;9:97-106.
25.Strom R, Griswold D, Collinsworth P, Strom
S. An inside view of parent success in black
families. Journal of Instructional Psychology.
1991:18:187-197.
26.Smetana JG. Adolescents' and parents' conceptions of parental authority. Child Dev.
1988:59:321-335.
27.Youniss J, Smollar J. Adolescent Relations
with Mothers, Fathers, and Friends. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press. 1985.
28.Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, HoweU CT.
Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional
problems: implications of cross-informant
correlations for situational specificity. Psychoi
Bull. 1987:101:213-232.
29.Edelbrock C, Costello AJ, Dulcan MK, et al.
Age differences in the reliability of the psychiatric interview of the child. Child Dev.
1985:56:265-275.
30.Beck KH. Monitoring parent concerns about
teenage drinking and driving: a random digit
telephone survey. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse.
1990:16:109-124.
31.Walker M, Moreau D, Weissman MM. Parents'
awareness of suicide attempts. Am J Psychia-

Beck et al

try. 1990:147:1364-1366.
32.Hartos JL, Power TG. Mothers' awareness of
their early adolescents' stressors: relation
between awareness and adolescent adjustment. J Early Adolesc. 1997;17(4):371-389.
33.Howard DE, Cross SI, Xiaoming L, Huang W.
Parent-youth concordance regarding violence
exposure: relationship to youth psychosocial
functioning. J Adolesc Health. 1999:25 396406.
34.Langhinrichsen J, Lichtenstein E, Seeley
JR, et al. Parent-adolescent congruence for
adolescent substance use. J Youth Adolesc.
1990:19(6):623-635.
35.Jaccard J, Dittus PJ, Gordon W. Parentadolescent congruency in reports of adolescent sexual behavior and in communications
about sexual behavior.
Child Dev.
1998:69(1):247-261.
36.Stanton BF, Xiaoming L, Galbraith J, et al.
Parental underestimates of adolescent risk
behavior: a randomized, controlled trial of a
parental monitoring intervention. J Adolesc
Health. 2000:26:18-26.
37.Otto L, Atkinson M. Parental involvement
and adolescent development. J Adolesc Res.
1997:12(l):68-89.
38.Brooks-Gunn J. Why do adolescents have
difficulty adhering to health regimes? In
Krasnegor NA, Epstein L H (Eds) Developmental Aspects of Health Compliance Behavior.
NewYork, NY: Columbia University. 1999:125155
39.Csikszentmihalyi M, Larson R.. Being Adolescent: Conflict and Growth in the Teenage
Years. New York: Basic Books 1984.
40.Steinberg LD. Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family relationship. In Feldman
S, Elliot G (Eds.). At the Threshold: the
Developing Adolescent. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press. 1990:255-276.
41.Paikoff RL, Brooks-Gunn J. Do parent-child
relationships chsinge during puberty? Psychoi
Bull. 1991:110:47-66.
42.Steinberg LD. The impact of puberty on family

Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(5):533-543

relations: effects of pubertal status and pubertal timing. Dev Psychoi. 1987:23:451-460.
43.Steinberg D. Reciprocal relation between
parent-child distance and pubertal maturation. Dev Psychoi. 1988:24:122-128.
44.Montemayor R. Parents and adolescents in
conflict: all of the families some of the time
and some families most of the time. J Early
Adolesc. 1983:3:83-103.
45.NoUer P, Callan VJ. The Adolescent in the
Family. London: Routiedge. 1991.
46.Steinberg LD. Transformations in family
relations at puberty. Dev Psychoi.
1981:17:833-840.
47.Mayhew DR, Simpson HM. The safety value
of driver education and training. Inj. Prev.
2002:8(Suppl II):ii3-ii8.
48.Williams AF. Graduated licensing comes to
the United States. Inj Prev. 1999:5(2): 133135.
49.Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL, Beck KH.
Persistence of effects of a brief intervention
on parental restrictions of teen driving privileges. Inj Prev. 2003:9:142-146.
50.Simons-Morton BG, Hartos J, Beck KH. Increased parent limits on teen driving: positive
effects from a brief intervention administered
at the MVA. Prev ScL 2004:5:101-111.
51.Beck KH, Hartos J L, Simons-Morton BG.
Parent-teen disagreement of parent-imposed
restrictions on teen driving after 1-month of
licensure: is discordance related to risky teen
driving? Prev ScL 2005:6:177-185.
52.MSN Home Advisor. Compare cities. Available at: http://homeadvisor.msn.com/
PickAPlace/CompareCities.asp. Accessed
October 25, 2001.
53.Donovan JE. Young adult drinking-driving:
behavioral and psychosocial correlates. J Stud
Alcohol. 1993:54:600-613.
54.Hartos JL, Simons-Morton BG, Beck KH, Leaf
WA. Parent-imposed limits on high-risk adolescent driving: are they stricter with graduated driver licensing? Accid Anal Prev.
2005:37:557-562.

543