Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2024 Mar 6;102:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2024.03.001

The more peers are present, the more adventurous? How peer presence influences adolescent pedestrian safety

Huarong Wang 1, Xueyang Su 1, Mengmeng Fan 1, David C Schwebel 2
PMCID: PMC10977920  NIHMSID: NIHMS1977209  PMID: 38559498

Abstract

Objective

Adolescence is a high-risk period for traffic injury. One factor that may impact adolescent safety in traffic is the presence of peers. We conducted a quasi-experimental research study to examine the impact of peer presence, peer familiarity, and peer group size on adolescent pedestrian risk-taking intentions in both sidewalk and street-crossing settings.

Methods

607 students aged 12-18 years from Nantong city, China, completed a questionnaire that presented 20 traffic scenarios. The scenarios varied based on a 3 (peer group size: no peer vs. one peer vs. multiple peers) x 2 (peer familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) x 2 (traffic setting: crossing the street vs. walking on the roadside) experimental design. Adolescents’ responses indicated safer vs riskier intentions in each situation.

Results

Results found that: (1) Adolescents were safer when walking on the sidewalk than when crossing the street; (2) Whether crossing the street or walking on the sidewalk, adolescents’ behavioral intentions were safer when there were peers present than when there were no peers present; (3) Adolescents’ safety tended to be higher overall with unfamiliar peers than with familiar peers; (4) Adolescents were less safe when crossing the street with familiar peer(s) than with unfamiliar peer(s), but no differences emerged when walking on the sidewalk.

Conclusions

Adolescents report safer behavior when walking with a peer or peers compared with walking alone. Familiar peers reduce adolescents’ safety of behavior intentions in traffic, especially when crossing the street.

Keywords: adolescent, peer presence, peer group size, peer familiarity

1. Introduction

Adolescence is a high-risk period for traffic injury (WHO, 2018). According to estimates from the Global Burden of Disease project, 8,944 Chinese youth aged 10-19 years died in traffic crashes in 2019, and 953,790 youth were injured. Globally, 95,587 youth were killed in traffic and 15,203,033 were injured (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2019).

One factor that may impact youth safety in traffic is influence from peers. It is well-established that adolescents and young adults are more susceptible to peer influences than other age groups (Gardner, & Steinberg, 2005), with numerous studies indicating a relationship between peer presence and risk-taking behaviors, including risky behaviors in traffic (Berenbaum et al., 2019; Bingham et al., 2016; Geber et al., 2019; Nicolls et al., 2022; Twisk, 2021). The presence of peers increases teen driver speeding (Møller, & Haustein, 2014; Scott-Parker et al., 2015), distracted driving (Brown et al., 2019; Carter et al., 2014; Stavrinos et al., 2020; Stefanidis et al., 2022), risky cycling (Babu et al., 2011; de Geus et al., 2019; Twisk & Vlakveld, 2019), and risky pedestrian decision-making (O’Neal et al., 2019; Tolmie et al., 2006).

As one example of the impact of peers on adolescent risk-taking in traffic, O’Neal and colleagues (2019) investigated behavior among a sample of young adolescents and adults physically crossing a single lane of continuous traffic in an immersive pedestrian simulator. Crossings occurred either with a friend or alone, and the results found that pairs of adolescent friends exhibited riskier road-crossing behavior than pairs of adult friends. As another example, Villavicencio and colleagues (2022) conducted a cross-sectional epidemiological analysis of police-reported crashes in the United States from 2016-2019, seeking to estimate rate ratios for death among drivers aged 16-17 years by passenger composition. The results showed that teen drivers carrying ≥2 teen passengers were twice as likely to die in crashes as teens driving alone, and drivers were seven times as likely to die when carrying a mix of teen and young adult passengers compared to teens driving alone.

The psychological mechanisms lying behind the impact of peers on increases in adolescent risk-taking in traffic are not fully understood, but likely involve a mix of physiological and psychological mechanisms. Steinberg (2008) theorized that adolescent risk-taking with peers may be impacted by pubertal changes in the brain’s socio-emotional system that leads to increased reward-seeking: the presence of peers activates neural circuitry implicated in reward processing, and impels adolescents toward greater risk-taking. To test this hypothesis, Telzer and colleagues (2021) focused on the ventral striatum (VS) sensitivity. They used fMRI to scan brain activity of 136 adolescents engaged in a Social Incentive Delay (SID) task to measure their VS sensitivity when anticipating the receipt of social rewards and avoidance of social punishment, following, they self-reported perceived peer group norms and risk-taking behaviors. They found perceptions of more deviant peer norms were associated with increased risky behavior, but only among adolescents with high VS sensitivity. In another study, Baltruschat and colleagues (2021) used EEG to record brain activity in the ventral prefrontal and mediodorsal cortices whilst young adults performed both a risk perception task and a driving simulation task under various circumstances of peer presence. They concluded that greater risk-taking with a peer present was triggered by activation of a different, less efficient brain network for risk-processing.

Contrary to popular belief, some studies report the effects of peer presence in traffic to be less straightforward, instead suggesting that some types of peer influence increase safety rather than promoting risk-taking (Donmez et al., 2021; Gou et al., 2017; Pfeffer, & Hunter, 2013). The most frequently proposed hypothesis for this behavior pattern is that some youth watch out for each other in potentially areas of high risk or danger, such as traffic situations (Donmez et al., 2021). For example, Pfeffer and Hunter (2013) examined the effects of peer influence on adolescent pedestrian road-crossing decisions and showed that adolescents selected unsafe road-crossing sites when accompanied by a peer who discouraged safe decisions and encouraged unsafe decisions, but participants identified more dangerous road-crossing sites when accompanied by a peer who encouraged safe decisions and discouraged unsafe ones. Horvath et al (2012) reported similar findings, indicating differing effects of peer presence on adolescents’ risk-taking in traffic under different circumstances.

The apparently contradictory findings in previous research might stem from several factors. First, the effect of peer group size on adolescents’ pedestrian behavior is poorly understood. Chinese scholars jokingly refer to the “Chinese style of crossing the road” (Gou et al., 2017), which suggests pedestrians cross an intersection not by following the traffic signals but rather based on whether a sufficient number of other pedestrians feel it is safe to cross. There is empirical evidence that pedestrians follow large group behavior and deem a crossing to be safe when many people are crossing simultaneously (Ye et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016). The present study therefore explored the impact of peer group size on pedestrian behavior intentions among adolescents.

Second, previous studies have focused primarily on the risk-promoting effect of close peers on adolescent traffic behavior, with less attention paid to the effects of unfamiliar peers. In related research with young drivers ages 17-24, Horvath and colleagues (2012) found that a close friendship with passengers led to higher intention to speed than low identification with passengers (e.g., friends of friends). We studied whether this phenomenon might translate to younger adolescents in pedestrian settings.

Third, most published research in the pedestrian safety domain focuses on the impact of peer presence on adolescents’ crossing behavior (O’Neal et al., 2019; Pfeflfer & Hunter, 2013; Zhu et al., 2021). Because walking along a sidewalk also presents risks (Gautam et al., 2021; Pai et al., 2019) and both children and adolescents exhibit different unsafe behaviors on sidewalks compared to when crossing streets (Posner et al., 2002; Poudel-Tandukar et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2018), we considered differences in pedestrian behavior intentions with peers across both sidewalk and street-crossing situations.

To evaluate our hypotheses, we developed a quasi-experimental research design whereby adolescents responded to scenario-based situations that manipulated aspects of peer presence on adolescent behavior in both sidewalk and street-crossing pedestrian settings. We altered both peer group size and closeness to peers across scenarios. We posited two primary hypotheses: (1) adolescents’ behavioral intentions in traffic will decrease in safety as the size of peer group increases, and the effect of peer group size will have a greater impact on the safety of adolescents’ street-crossing compared to walking on sidewalks (H1); and (2) adolescents’ behavioral intentions in traffic will decrease in safety when presented with scenarios involving familiar compared to unfamiliar peers, and familiar peer(s) will have a greater impact on the safety of adolescents street-crossing compared to walking on sidewalks (H2).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design

A 3 (peer group size: no peer vs. one peer vs. multiple peers) x 2 (peer familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) x 2 (traffic setting: crossing the street vs. walking on the roadside) design was implemented. Behavioral intention to take risk in the simulated situations served as the dependent variable.

2.2. Participants

Middle and high school students attending 5 schools in Nantong city, China participated. A total of 627 students were surveyed, including 321 girls and 306 boys. The sample included 144 students from junior high schools and 483 students from senior high schools, with an average age of 16 years (SD = 1.42; range = 12-18 years). Among them, twenty students’ data were excluded as invalid either because their answer options had high repetition rates indicating random responding (80% or more repetition), or because there were excessive missing answers. Therefore, the sample yielded 607 valid questionnaires (effective response rate of 96.8%). All participants provided informed consent to participate in the study, and all participating school officials agreed to cooperate with the study. Approval for the research was obtained from the Nantong University Academic Ethics Committee.

2.3. Traffic scenario-based questionnaire

A traffic scenario-based questionnaire was developed to measure behavior intention among adolescents in different traffic situations. The presented traffic situations included three varying elements: (1) peer group size: no peer vs. one peer vs. multiple (5-10) peers; (2) peer familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar; and (3) traffic setting: crossing the street vs. walking on the sidewalk. Familiar peers were defined as a “friend” and unfamiliar peers as either a stranger (e.g., a passer-by) or an unfamiliar student from other classes at school. Merging the three elements created 10 types of traffic situations that were presented to participants: 2 traffic situations for no peers, plus 2 traffic settings by 2 peer familiarities by 2 peer group sizes. Across the 10 types of traffic situations, each type was evaluated with 2 specific traffic items, one evaluating safety and one evaluating risk, as detailed below. Together, this yielded 20 items representing traffic situations that Chinese adolescents often face. All participants completed all 20 items. Items were answered using a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating safer behavioral intentions.

Among the 20 items, both safe and dangerous suggestions or behaviors among peer(s) were presented. An example safe peer situation while crossing the street read, “You and your friend are walking home from “cram school” together. It is rush hour, so there are many vehicles and cycles at the intersection. The traffic lights seem to be broken and are not displaying signals properly, making the traffic even more complex. You friend suggests waiting for the traffic to become less congested before crossing the road. At this moment, do you agree with your friend? (1 Completely disagree →5 Completely agree)”. And an example unsafe peer item while crossing read, “On the weekend, you and your friends walk home together after studying at the library. As you prepare to cross the road, you see that the green light on the pedestrian signal countdown has only 4 seconds left. You are still some distance away from the crosswalk. One of your friends suggests running to the opposite side of the road immediately, and other friends join in and start running. At this moment, do you agree with your friends? (1 Completely disagree →5 Completely agree)”.

To develop the traffic scenario-based questionnaire, we invited adolescents not involved in the primary study and their teachers, as well as experts in traffic psychology, to discuss the appropriateness of each questionnaire item, and the accuracy and clarity of item expression. After several rounds of improvements, the current version, which appears in the supplementary materials, was finalized. To validate the questionnaire, we considered its content validity prior to administering the survey. Ten experts, including 4 traffic psychology researchers and 6 experienced educators, reviewed the survey to rate the appropriateness of each of the 20 items on a 5-point scale, with 1 indicating “completely inappropriate” and 5 indicating “completely appropriate”. Results of the content validity check, as well as split-half and internal consistency reliability statistics, are presented in the results section.

2.4. Procedure

We distributed information about the study to all middle and high schools in Nantong city, China, and school officials from 2 middle schools and 3 high schools responded with interest in participating. Based on convenience sampling, we selected students from 15 classes (4 middle school classes and 11 high school classes) across these 5 schools to complete the survey. Two research assistants distributed questionnaires to students in their classrooms. They asked participants to read each item carefully, imagine what choices they would make if faced with the situation, and then choose their answers. The survey took about 20 minutes for each participant to complete.

2.5. Data analysis

We computed an average safety score for intended pedestrian behaviors for each participant, with higher scores indicating safer behavioral intentions. Given previous studies suggesting the effects of peer presence on adolescent risk-taking may be more pronounced in males than females (Defoe et al., 2019; Kennedy et al., 2018; Lim et al., 2023; Trogolo et al., 2022), we conducted preliminary analyses to determine if safety scores varied between male and female adolescents at each experimental level.

With age as a covariate, we conducted a repeated measurement ANCOVA with a 2 (traffic setting: crossing the street vs walking on the roadside) x 3 (peer group size: no peer vs one peer vs multiple peers) design. Safety scores served as the dependent variable. Then, we removed the no-peer level and computed a 2 (traffic setting: crossing the street vs walking on the roadside) x 2 (peer group size: one peer vs multiple peers) x 2 (peer familiarity: familiar vs unfamiliar) repeated measurement ANCOVA, with age controlled and safety scores as the dependent variable.

3. Results

3.1. Questionnaire psychometrics and analysis for sex differences

Expert evaluation of the questionnaire for content validity found a Kendall coefficient of 0.82 across the 10 evaluators, indicating strong interrater consistency. The average ratings across the 20 items fell between 4.0 and 4.6, with 4.0 indicating quite appropriate and 5.0 indicating completely appropriate. These data offer evidence of content validity.

Among the 607 study participants, internal consistency of the questionnaire was excellent (Cronbach α = 0.87) and the split-half reliability Spearman Brown coefficient was 0.84. These results suggest the questionnaire had strong internal reliability.

Next, a four-way Repeated-Measures (sex vs. peer group size vs. peer familiarity vs. traffic setting) ANCOVA test was conducted with age controlled, and the results found no significant sex effect, and no interaction effects between sex and other variables, ps>0.05. Given these findings, subsequent analyses were conducted with sex omitted.

3.2. The effect of peer group size on adolescents’ safety scores

Table 1 shows descriptive data concerning the average safety scores across various traffic settings and peer group sizes. A two-way Repeated-Measures ANCOVA test revealed that after controlling for age, there was a statistically significant difference across traffic settings, F (1,606) =7.32. p<0.01, η2 p =0.02, with scores for walking on the sidewalk safer than those crossing the street. The main effect of peer group size was not significant, F (2,606) <1, but we detected a statistically significant interaction effect between traffic scenarios and peer group size, F (2,606) =4.91, p<0.01, η2 p =0.02. A simple effect test showed that when there was no peer present or only one peer present, adolescents’ behavior was safer when walking on the sidewalk than crossing the street. When multiple peers were present, there was no significant difference in adolescents’ safety between crossing the street and walking on the sidewalk. Interpreted differently, the presence of peers seemed to impact behavior in the riskier scenario of crossing the street more than it impacted behavior walking on sidewalks. Moreover, the simple effect test also found that whether crossing the street or walking on the sidewalk, adolescents’ behavior was safer when there were peers present than when there was no peer present (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Mean (SE) for safety score as a function of peer group size and traffic settings

Traffic setting No peer One peer Multiple peers
Crossing the street 3.91 (0.03) 4.09 (0.03) 4.16 (0.03)
Walking on the sidewalk 4.05 (0.03) 4.17 (0.04) 4.15 (0.03)
Open in a new tab

Note: The covariates present in the model are evaluated at the following values: age=16.10.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Safety score by peer group size and traffic scenarios

3.3. The effects of peer group size and peer familiarity on adolescent safety

Table 2 shows descriptive data concerning the average behavioral intention safety scores across traffic settings, peer group size and peer familiarity. A three-way Repeated-Measures ANCOVA test was conducted with age controlled and safety scores as the dependent variable. Results showed a significant main effect of peer familiarity, F(1,606)=12.50, p<0.001, η2p =0.04, but no significant effect for traffic setting (F(1,606)=1.76, p>0.05) or peer group size (F(1,606) <1). Safety scores tended to be higher with unfamiliar peers than with familiar peers. We also detected significant interaction effects between traffic scenario and peer familiarity, F(1,606)=6.59, p<0.05, η2p =0.02, and between peer group size and peer familiarity, F(1,606)=4.35, p<0.05, η2p =0.02.

Table 2.

Mean (SE) for safety score of behavior intention as a function of peer group size, familiarity with peers and traffic settings

Traffic setting One peer Multiple peers
Familiar Unfamiliar Familiar Unfamiliar
Crossing the street 3.97 (0.04) 4.21 (0.04) 4.12 (0.04) 4.21 (0.03)
Walking on the sidewalk 3.99 (0.05) 4.34 (0.04) 4.26 (0.04) 4.03 (0.04)
Open in a new tab

A series of simple effects tests showed that adolescents were less safe when crossing the street with familiar peer(s) than with unfamiliar peer(s), but no differences emerged when walking on the sidewalk (Fig. 2). Further, adolescents took more risks when walking with a single familiar peer than with a single unfamiliar peer. However, when walking with multiple peers, adolescents were safer with familiar than with unfamiliar peers. Moreover, the simple effect test showed that adolescents took more risks when walking with a single familiar peer than with multiple familiar peers (Fig. 3).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Safety score by traffic setting and peer familiarity

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Safety score by peer group size and peer familiarity

4. Discussion

The impact of peers on adolescent risk-taking in traffic has received widespread attention (Møller & Haustein, 2014; Sutherland et al., 2022; Twisk & Vlakveld, 2019), but previous research has not carefully considered the impacts of peer familiarity, peer group size, and their interactive effects on adolescents’ self-reported intention to take risks in road traffic situations both while crossing the street and while walking on the sidewalk. The current findings suggest the presence of peers may facilitate safety in some situations but encourage risk-taking in other situations, depending on the size of peer group, the familiarity with the peers, and the traffic situation faced.

Much previous research reports that adolescents take more risks in traffic when with peers than when engaging in traffic alone (O’Neal et al., 2019; Gannon et al., 2014; Sutherland et al., 2022), although conflicting previous evidence suggests that peer presence might protect adolescents from risk-taking in certain situations (Donmez et al., 2021; Pfeffer & Hunter, 2013; Horvath et al., 2012). Our research confirms that the circumstances of the traffic and types of peers present may impact adolescent risk-taking or preference toward safety when crossing the street.

A review by Thomas and colleagues (2007) suggests adolescents act in traffic in the manner they wish to be perceived (i.e., as safe or reckless), and those desires might change depending on the audience of peers who are present. Pfeffer and Hunter (2013) found, for example, that when adolescents were accompanied by peers who encouraged risk-taking, the adolescents selected less safe road-crossing sites. However, when accompanied by peers who encouraged caution, the adolescents displayed caution.

Our results also found adolescent risk-taking varied by context. We found consistently lower risk scores among our sample, for example, when presented with scenarios walking with one or multiple peers compared to when walking alone. One possible explanation for these findings may relate to the fact that we collected the data in China. Almost all previous research was conducted in North America or Western Europe. Unlike those Western cultures, Chinese culture values collectivism, which invokes conformity and social obligation (Fivush, & Haden, 2003). Chinese adolescents may feel social pressure from peers to conform with rules. Further, our results may also have emerged given the design of the current study, where we presented peers behaving both safely and riskily rather than focusing primarily on influence of risk-taking from peers as in most previous research (Møller, & Haustein, 2014; Twisk & Vlakveld, 2019). When safe peers are present, adolescents might feel pressure to follow the safe decisions of their peers, and consistent with their safe peers’ expectations (Bingham et al., 2016), just as previous research found that adolescents might follow the risky behavior of their risk-taking peers (Morrongiello et al., 2019; Scott-Parker et al., 2015).

As predicted, and consistent with previous research suggesting the presence of close peers promotes adolescent risk taking when driving and in other risk-taking domains like substance use (Martins et al., 2008; O’Neal et al., 2019; Simons-Morton et al., 2012; Scott-Parke et al., 2015; Yanovitzky et al., 2006), our study found higher risk scores when walking with a familiar peer(s) than with unfamiliar ones. This difference was especially pronounced when adolescents were in the riskier situation of crossing the street. Our results are consistent with the idea that reward salience is greater in the presence of familiar peers, such as friends, increasing the adolescent propensity to engage or accept higher than usual levels of risk (Steinberg, 2008). Specifically, presence of familiar peers likely increases activation of socio-emotional networks, which are associated with performing exciting and rewarding activities. High activation of socio-emotional networks suppresses activity in the immature adolescent cognitive control network, thus increasing risk-taking behavior (Steinberg, 2010).

Our hypothesis that familiar peers might have a greater impact on safety when crossing the street versus walking on the sidewalk was also supported. Street-crossing involves more risk, and influence from familiar peers may be more impactful than when walking on the sidewalk. Unfamiliar peers are unlikely to create significant distractions when crossing the street, allowing adolescents to focus on crossing and use unfamiliar peers as a reference for safety rather than a distraction from the crossing task.

Last, our study found that the impact of peer familiarity on adolescent pedestrian safety interacted with peer group size. When walking with a single peer, adolescents’ safety was lower with a familiar peer than with an unfamiliar peer. That effect reversed with multiple peers, where safety was higher with familiar peers than unfamiliar ones. When walking with a single familiar peer, adolescents may experience strong social needs and reward salience, disrupting their attention to traffic and reducing their safety (Gannon et al., 2014; O’Neal et al., 2019; Simons-Morton et al., 2012). The effect of familiarity among multiple peers is interesting, and we propose two possible explanations for the results. First, when adolescents walk with multiple familiar peers, the pressure to be evaluated increases (Defoe et al., 2019; Steinberg, & Monahan, 2007), and due to the influence of collectivist culture, Chinese adolescents may tend to comply with social rules and exhibit safer behavior. Second, the characteristics of this study’s sample may have contributed to the result. Adolescents in this study were recruited from middle and high schools, with 77% of them coming from high schools. Currently, only about 50% of students in China pass middle school exams that allow them to progress into high school, with the others diverting to vocational training. Therefore, adolescents in our study are among the top half of academic performers, as are their peer group. They may have reduced health-risk behaviors for this reason (La Greca et al., 2001; Mosbach, & Leventhal, 1988), and they may influence their peers in safer ways.

Our findings have several implications for adolescent traffic safety. First, adolescents should be encouraged to take caution when engaging in traffic with familiar peers. Adolescents spend more time in peer groups than adults do (Brown, 2004), and confirming previous findings (Gannon et al., 2014; O’Neal et al., 2019), adolescents in our study seemed willing to take more risks in traffic with familiar than unfamiliar peers. Second, adolescent behavior near traffic may require continued adult supervision and oversight. Our study replicated previous findings (Cattelino et al., 2014; Monahan, et al., 2009) that a key aspect of risk-taking among adolescents is the influence of peers who encourage dangerous or risky behaviors. Developmental theories suggest that affiliation with strong-willed peers who encourage risk-taking, and the susceptibility to peer influence from those peers, are notable contributors to adolescent involvement in risk behavior (Dishion, & Veronneau, 2012; Keijsers, et al., 2012). Therefore, parents might work to provide active guidance in the selection of peer groups and peer influences for their adolescent children.

Third, peer-based traffic safety training programs for children and adolescents have proven effective (Dragutinovic & Twisk, 2006; Foot et al., 2006; Masilamani et al., 2022; Tolmie et al., 2005) and could encompass training on safe street-crossing behavior, including when walking with peers. For example, Masilamani and colleagues (2022) evaluated a peer-led education program where adolescents taught other adolescents about road safety. The pretest-posttest design study demonstrated improved knowledge and attitudes about road safety following the training. Such training could leverage the power of peer influence during adolescence, using social interaction and impact on peer norms to improve learning (Dragutinovic & Twisk, 2006).

Last, our results reinforce the need for institution and enforcement of traffic laws and policies concerning pedestrian safety, especially near schools. Traffic calming and safety-related infrastructure changes that protect adolescent pedestrians are likely to be effective since the developmental stage of adolescence will continue to place youth at risk when they make risky decisions in and near traffic.

Our results should be interpreted in light of two study limitations. First, our sample was overbalanced to adolescents in senior high schools and included fewer adolescents in junior high schools, who might display different road behavior patterns. In addition, we relied on self-report responses to traffic situations and may have encountered social desirability bias among participants who wished to appear safer or to comply with societal expectations. Future research might consider adopting more ecologically valid methods, such as virtual reality technology, to examine the impact of peers on adolescent traffic behavior.

5. Conclusion

This study of over 600 Chinese adolescents found that the impact of peers on pedestrian risk-taking is complex and dependent on multiple aspects of the contextual environment. We found that adolescents reported safer behavioral intentions when walking with a peer or peers compared with walking alone, and that familiar peers reduced adolescents’ safety intentions in traffic, especially when crossing the street.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • We examined the impact of peer presence on adolescent pedestrian risk-taking intentions whereby a traffic scenario-based experimental research.

  • Adolescents’ behavioral intentions in traffic were safer when there were peers present than when there were no peers present.

  • Adolescents were less safe when crossing the street with familiar peer(s) than with unfamiliar peer(s).

  • Peer familiarity didn’t effect adolescents’ safety when walking on the sidewalk.

  • Adolescents’ safety in traffic was higher with multiple familiar peers than with multiple unfamiliar peers.

Acknowledgement

We thank Guan Tong, Wang Tong, and other the cooperating teachers from Hai’an Senior School, Hailing Middle School and other participating schools for their assistance with this study.

Funding

This work was primarily supported by the Jiangsu Social Science Fund Project in China [21JYB013] and Major Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities of Jiangsu Province in China [2020SJZDA118]. Dr. Schwebel’s effort on this project was partially supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the US National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01HD088415. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Babu SV, Grechkin TY, Chihak B, Ziemer C, Kearney JK, Cremer JF, & Plumert JM (2011). An immersive virtual peer for studying social influences on child cyclists’ road- crossing behavior. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 17(1), 14–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baltruschat S, Megías-Robles A, Cándido A, Maldonado A, & Catena A (2021). Social and non-social brain areas in risk behaviour: the role of social context, neuroscience, 465, 177–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berenbaum E, Harrington D, Keller-Olaman S, & Manson H(2019). Y TXT N DRIVE? predictors of texting while driving among a sample of Ontario youth and young adults. Accident analysis and prevention, 122, 301–307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bingham CR, Simons-Morton BG Pradhan AK, Li K, Almani F, Falk EB, Shope JT Buckley L, Ouimet MC & Albert PS(2016). Peer passenger norms and pressure: Experimental effects on simulated driving among teenage males. Transportation Research Part F, 41,124–137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown B (2004). Adolescents ‘relationships with peers. In Lemer R & Steinberg L (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363–394). New York: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown PM, George AM, & Rickwood D, (2019). Perceived risk and anticipated regret as factors predicting intentions to text while driving among young adults. Transportation Research Part F, 62, 339–348. [Google Scholar]
  7. Carter PM, Bingham CR, Zakrajsek JS, Shope JT, & Sayer TB, (2014). Social norms and risk perception: Predictors of distracted driving behavior among novice adolescent drivers. Journal of adolescent health, 54(5), S32–S41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cattelino E, Glowacz E, Born M, Testa S, Bina M, & Calandri E (2014). Adolescent risk behaviours and protective factors against peer Influence. Journal of Adolescence, 37,1353e1362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. de Geus E, Vlakveld WP & Twisk DAM (2019): Peer distraction: an experiment to assess impact on adolescent and adult cyclists’ hazard perception. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, 12(1), 66–81. [Google Scholar]
  10. Defoe IN, Dubas JS, Dalmaijer ES, & van Aken MAG (2019). Is the peer presence effect on heightened adolescent risky decision-making only present in males? Journal of youth and adolescence, 49(3),693–701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dishion TJ, Ha T, & Veronneau MH (2012). An ecological analysis of the effects of deviant peer clustering on sexual promiscuity, problem behavior, and childbearing from early adolescence to adulthood: an enhancement of the life history framework. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 703e717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Donmez B, Merrikhpour M, & Nooshabadi MH (2021). Mitigating Teen Driver Distraction: In-Vehicle Feedback Based on Peer Social Norms. Human factors, 63(3), 503–518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dragutinovic N & Twisk D (2006). The effectiveness of road safety education. R-2006-6. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fivush R, & Haden C (2003). Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  15. Foot HC, Thomson JA, Tolmie AK, Whelan KM, Morrison S & Sarvary P (2006). Children’s understanding of drivers’ intentions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24,681–700. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gannon B, Rosta L, Reeve M, Hyde MK, & Lewis 1(2014). Does it matter whether friends, parents, or peer drink walk? Identifying which normative influences predict young pedestrian’s decisions to walk while intoxicated. Transportation research part F, 22, 12–24. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardner M, & Steinberg L (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental psychology, 41, 625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gautam P, Mytton JA, Joshi S-K, & Pilkington P (2021). Adolescent’s perception of road risk on their routes to school in Makwanpur, Nepal; a qualitative study. Journal of transport & health, 20,101009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Geber S, Baumann E, Czerwinski F, & Klimint C (2019). The effects of social norms among peer groups on risk behavior: A multilevel approach to differentiate perceived and collective norms. Communication Research,48(3), 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gou J Cai X & Dou S(2017). Behavior simulation of’Chinese style road crossing” based on evolutionary game theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences. [Google Scholar]
  21. Horvath C, Lewis I & Watson B (2012). Peer passenger identity and passenger pressure on young drivers’ speeding intentions. Transportation Research Part F, 15, 52–64. [Google Scholar]
  22. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington. GBD Compare Viz Hub. Available from< https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ > (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  23. Kennedy A, Cullen B, Finnan D, Fleiter JJ, & Lewis I (2018). Peer passenger intentions to speak up to a risky driver: A theoretically-guided investigation of the effects of a high school road safety education program. Transportation Research Part F, 54, 15–27. [Google Scholar]
  24. Keijsers L, Branje S, Hawk TS, Schwartz SJ, Frijns T, Koot HM, et al. (2012). Forbidden friends as forbidden fruit: parental supervision of friendships, contact with deviant peers, and adolescent delinquency. Child Development, 83(2), 651e666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. La Greca AM, Prinstein MJ, & Fetter MD (2001). Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: linkage with health-risk behaviors and close friendships. Journal of Pediatric psychology, 26(3), 131–143. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lim B, Lahar CJ, Dang HM, & Weiss B (2023). Relations between risk perception, perceptions of peers’ driving, and risky driving among Cambodian adolescents. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 1238945. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Masilamani N, Kothandan P, Basker MM,& Immanuel SG (2022). Effectiveness of Peer-Led Education on Knowledge and Attitude among Adolescents regarding Road Safety. Indian journal of community medicine, 47 (3), 356–359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Martins SS, Storr CL, Alexandre PK, & Chilcoat HD (2008). Adolescent ecstasy and other drug use in the national survey of parents and youth: the role of sensation-seeking, parental monitoring and peer’s drug use. Addictive Behaviors, 33(7), 919–933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Møller M,& Haustein S(2014). Peer influence on speeding behaviour among male drivers aged 18 and 28. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 64,92–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Monahan KC, Steinberg L, & Cauffman E (2009). Affiliation with antisocial peers, susceptibility to peer influence, and antisocial behavior during the transition to adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1520e1530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Morrongiello BA, Corbett M, Koutsoulianos S, & Foster A (2019).Effects of Peers on Child Pedestrian Behaviors in a Virtual Traffic Context. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 44 (4), 509–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mosbach P, & Leventhal HL(1988). Peer group identification and smoking: implications for intervention. Journal of abnormal psychology, 97, 238–245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nicolls M, Truelove V, & Stefanidis KB (2022). The impact of descriptive and injunctive norms on engagement in mobile phone use while driving in young drivers: A systematic review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 175, 106774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. O’Neal EE, Jiang Y, Brown K, Kearney JK, & Plumert JM (2019). How Does Crossing Roads with Friends Impact Risk Taking in Young Adolescents and Adults? Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 4(6), 726–735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pai C-W, Chen P-L,Ma S-T, et al. (2019). Walking against or with traffic? Evaluating pedestrian fatalities and head injuries in Taiwan. BMC Public Health, 19,1280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pfeffer K & Hunter E (2013). The effects of peer influence on adolescent pedestrian road- crossing decisions. Traffic Injury Prevention, 14(4), 434–440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Posner JC, Liao E, Winston FK, et al. (2002). Exposure to traffic among urban children injured as pedestrians. Injwy Prevention, 8, 231–235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Poudel-Tandukar K, Nakahara S, Ichikawa M, Poudel KC, & Wakai S(2006). Relationship between mechanisms and activities at the time of pedestrian injury and activity limitation among school adolescents in Kathmandu, Nepal. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 1058–1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Scott-Parker B, Watson B, King MJ, & Hyde MK (2015). “I would have lost the respect of my friends and family if they knew I had bent the road rules”: Parents, peers, and the perilous behaviour of young drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 28,1–13. [Google Scholar]
  40. Simons-Morton BG, Ouimet MC, Chen R, Klauer SG, Lee SE, Wang J, & Dingus TA (2012). Peer Influence Predicts Speeding Prevalence Among Teenage Drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 43(5-6), 397–403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stefanidis KB, Truelove V, Freeman J, Mills L, Nicolls M, Sutherland K, & Davey J (2022). A double-edged sword? Identifying the influence of peers, mass and social media on engagement in mobile phone use while driving. Transportation Research Part F: 87, 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  42. Steinberg L, & Monahan KC (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531–1543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Steinberg L (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28,78–106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stavrinos D, McManus B, & Beck H (2020). Demographic, driving experience, and psychosocial predictors of adolescent distracted driving beliefs. Accident analysis and prevention, 144. 105678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Steinberg L (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk taking. Developmental psychobiology, 52, 216–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sutherland JE, Hassein U, Day DM, & Easa SM (2022). Modeling social rejection, physiological arousal, and peer influence on risky driving among adolescents and young adults. Transportation Research Part F, 84, 114–138. [Google Scholar]
  47. Thomas J, Kavanagh J, Tucker H, Burchett H, Tripney J, & Oakley A (2007). Accidental injury, risk-taking behaviour and the social circumstances in which young people (aged 12–24) live: A systematic review. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tolmie AK, Thomson JA, O’Connor R, Foot HC, Karagiannidou E, Banks M, O’Donnell C, & Sarvary P (2006). The role of skills, attitudes and perceived behavioural control in the pedestrian decision-making of adolescents aged 11-15 years. London: Department for Transport. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tolmie A, Thomson JA, Foot HC, Whelan K, Morrison S, & McLaren B (2005). The effects of adult guidance and peer discussion on the development of children’s representations: Evidence from the training of pedestrian skills. British Journal of Psychology, 96,181–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Trogolo MA, Ledesma R, Medrano LA, & Dominguez-Lara S (2022). Peer pressure and risky driving: Development of a new scale. Journal of safety research, 82, 48–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Twisk D & Vlakveld W (2019): Social environment versus cycling competency predicting risk-taking in 11- to 13-year-old cyclists in The Netherlands. Traffic injury prevention, 20, S27–S32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Twisk D, & Senserrick T (2021). Risky road behaviours cluster and share predictor variables with smoking and drinking, and anti-social behaviours during early adolescence. Journal of transport & health, 20, 101024. [Google Scholar]
  53. Villavicencio L, Svancara AM, Kelley-Baker T, & Tefft BC (2022). Passenger presence and the relative risk of teen driver death. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(5), 757–762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang H, Tan D, Schwebel DC, Shi L, & Miao L(2018). Effect of age on children’s pedestrian behaviour: Results from an observational study. Transportation Research Part F, (58), 556–565. [Google Scholar]
  55. World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on road safety 2018. Available from <www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/> (accessed on 12 June 2023).
  56. Yanovitzky L, Stewart LP, & Ledennan LC. (2006). Social distance, perceived drinking by peers, and alcohol use by college students. Health Communication, 19(1), 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. S. Ye., Wang L, Cheong KH, & Xie N (2017). Pedestrian Group-Crossing Behavior Modeling and Simulation Based on Multidimensional Dirty Faces Game. Hindawi Complexity, 1723728. [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhang W, Wang K, Wang L Feng Z, & Du Y (2016). Exploring factors affecting pedestrians’ red-light running behaviors at intersections in China. Accident analysis and prevention, 96, 71–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhu D, Sze NN, & Bai L(2021). Roles of personal and environmental factors in the red light running propensity of pedestrian: Case study at the urban crosswalks. Transportation Research Part F, 76, 47–58. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1977209-supplement-1.docx (32KB, docx)

RESOURCES