Table 1 Research on associations between parental restrictions and teen driving.
| Study | Design; sample; purpose | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Hartos, Eitel, Haynie, Simons‐Morton33 | Retrospective survey; n = 300 licensed HS students; assess associations with teen driving outcomes | Associations with risky driving |
| • Parental monitoring (–) | ||
| • Self control (–) | ||
| • Deviance acceptance (+) | ||
| • Problem friends (+) | ||
| Associations with violations | ||
| • Time licensed (+) | ||
| • Restrict teen passengers (–) | ||
| • Parental control (–) | ||
| Associations with crashes | ||
| • Restrict teen passengers (–) | ||
| McCartt, Shabanova, Leaf3 | Prospective survey with 6 month follow ups from freshmen to senior grades; n = 911 HS students; assess effect of driving experience on teen driving outcomes | Crash and conviction rates higher in first month of independent driving |
| Associations with violations | ||
| • Male gender (+) | ||
| • GPA (–) | ||
| • Rural area (+) | ||
| Associations with crashes | ||
| • Parental restrictions (–) | ||
| • GPA (–) | ||
| Hartos, Eitel, Simons‐Morton34 | Prospective survey with 3 month follow up; n = 261 licensed HS students; assess predictors of risky driving | Predictors of risky driving |
| • Baseline risky driving (+) | ||
| • Deviance acceptance (+) | ||
| • Parental monitoring (–) | ||
| • Parental restrictions (–) | ||
| Hartos, Eitel, Simons‐Morton35 | Prospective survey with 1 year follow up; n = 275 parent‐teen dyads recruited at permit, 161 of whom were licensed and interviewed 1 year later; assess parent management and predictors of risky driving | Parent management |
| • Parents delayed license testing until teen was ready | ||
| • Parents placed more limits on trip than risk conditions | ||
| Predictors of teen risky driving | ||
| • Young age at license (+) | ||
| • Male gender (+) | ||
| • Risk perceptions (‐) | ||
| • Parent‐teen conflict over driving (+) | ||
| • Parental monitoring (‐) | ||
| Hartos, Beck, Simons‐Morton36 | Cross sectional survey; n = 658 parents of teens testing for a permit; assess parents' intended limits | Parents' intended limits |
| • > trip conditions | ||
| • < risk conditions | ||
| • 1/3 completed a parent‐teen driving agreement | ||
| Associations with intended limits | ||
| • Parental monitoring (+) | ||
| • Risk perceptions (+) | ||
| • Discussions about driving rules (+) | ||
| • Vehicle access (–) | ||
| Hartos, Shattuck, Simons‐Morton, Beck37 | In‐depth interviews; n = 24 parents and newly licensed teens; assess parent driving rules | Parent rules |
| • 143 different rules | ||
| • Rules not strict | ||
| • Consequences for rules violations | ||
| – Talk/warn (more likely) | ||
| – Take away driving privileges (less likely) | ||
| Beck, Hartos, Simons‐Morton38 | Cross sectional survey at 1 month post licensure; n = 579 parents and newly licensed teens; examine associations with risky driving | Associations with risky driving |
| • Discordance on restrictions (+) | ||
| • Discordance on consequences for violating rules (+) | ||
| Goodwin, Foss39 | Cross sectional survey; n = 900 parents and teens after intermediate or full licensure; are parents and teens aware and do they adhere to GDL? | Parents and teens |
| • High awareness of rules | ||
| • 10% of teens violate night rules, 15% with parent permission | ||
| • 4% of parents allowed violations of passenger limits | ||
| • Teens reported little concern about detection, but drove to avoid it | ||
| Hartos, Simons‐Morton, Beck, Leaf40 | Prospective surveys within 4 months of licensure; n = 292 parent‐teen dyads in MD; 108 dyads in CT; determine whether parent limits are stricter in MD with GDL or CT without GDL | Parent limits stricter with GDL |
| • Teen passengers | ||
| • High speed roads | ||
| • Night driving | ||
| • Overall limits |
HS, High School; MD, Maryland; CT, Connecticut; GDL, graduated driver licensing; (+), positive effect or improvement; (−), negative or detrimental result.