“My Son Is Reliable”

Young Drivers’ Risk

Young drivers are at a relatively high risk for road crash injury and death. Their crashes have been found to be more likely to involve driver error, and they are more likely to be at fault in crashes (Beck, Hartos, & Simons-Morton, 2002; Scott-Parker, Watson, & King, 2009; Williams, Ferguson, & McCartt, 2007). This high risk is explained by their limited driving inexperience, relatively lower ability to assess driving hazards, higher tendency to perceive their crash risk as low, a propensity to take risks or to speed and to be influenced by peers who encourage risk taking while driving (Groeger, 2006; McKnight & McKnight 2003; Vick, 2005; Simons-Morton, Lerner, & Singer, 2005). In addition, certain driving conditions such as nighttime driving and driving with other youth put them at a particular risk (Simons-Morton et al., 2008).

Keating and Halpern-Felsher (2008) suggest that young drivers engage in risky driving because they are more focused on the benefits of driving such as gaining independence and looking “cool” in front of their peers than on its risks. In other studies researchers found that young drivers report they are exposed to speeding and to cell phone use while driving as well as to distractions such as smoking, eating, and listening to loud music at a relatively high frequency. Yet they do not necessarily identify these as risks (Ginsburg et al., 2008). In general, the cultural context of youth driving elicits mixed messages and unclear regulations regarding safety (Tilleczek, 2004). There are also factors associated with gender: Young male drivers tend to take more driving risks than females and are involved in more crashes (Prato, Toledo, Lotan, & Taubma-Ben-Ari, 2010).

Intervention Approaches to Reduce Young Drivers’ Risk

Various approaches are used to increase the driving safety of young drivers. One approach emphasizes information and educational activities, which can take place within the school system, the community, or through the media. Another is to place restrictions on conditions known to put young drivers at higher risk. These include nighttime driving or driving with other passengers. This approach draws on what has been called in the road safety literature “the young driver dilemma”: On the one hand, it is critical for young drivers to gain driving experience in order to enhance their driving skills. On the other hand, their driving increases their risk of being involved in a crash.

In some countries there are official restrictions, but researchers note that even where they are mandated by law (e.g., they employ “graduated license programs”) their success relies on parental involvement in enforcing the restrictions (Hartos, Shattuck, Simons-Morton, Beck, 2004; Simons-Morton, Hartos, Leaf, & Preusser, 2006; Williams et al., 2006).

As a result of technological developments, currently there are also technological devices that can be installed in vehicles that can document how the young driver drives (Lee, 2007; Farmer, Kirley, & McCartt, 2010). The data from these systems can provide young drivers and their parents/guardians ongoing and detailed feedback on various aspects of their driving. Despite the potential of such monitoring devices, parents might be apprehensive about obtaining them because they might be concerned about infringing on their son’s or daughter’s privacy or fear this would erode their relationship with their son or daughter (Brovold et al., 2007; Guttman & Gesser-Edelsburg, 2011). Thus, the use of technological systems to increase the safety of young drivers also relies on parental involvement and conceptions of parental responsibility.

Parental Involvement in Young Drivers’ Driving

Scholars and practitioners concur that the success of various approaches that aim to influence young drivers’ safety can be influenced by parental involvement (Williams et al., 2006). Findings indicate that youth whose parents are more involved and impose limits on their driving are more likely to take fewer risks and are less involved in traffic violations (Beck et al., 2002). One study reported traffic violations to be four times more likely and crashes seven times more likely among adolescents whose parents had more lenient driving restrictions (Hartos et al., 2004). Yet young drivers reported their parents did not tend to impose driving restrictions (Hartos, Beck, & Simons-Morton, 2004).

Parents’ hesitation to impose restrictions might be explained by their underestimation of their son’s or daughter’s driving risk. There is a general tendency identified and labeled by researchers as the “optimistic bias.” It has been found that people tend to give a lower estimate of their own risk compared with others. This “optimistic bias” was also found in drivers’ estimation of their own safety (Harré, 2007; McKenna, 1993). By implication, parents might also assess the driving risk of their own son or daughter as relatively low compared with the risk of others. This might influence their conception of their responsibility to their driving safety. Furthermore, studies show there is a gap between what parents think they know about their son’s or daughter’s driving and what young drivers report (Beck et al., 2002; Cottrell et al., 2003; Sherman, Lapidus, Gelven, & Banco, 2004).

The contradiction between parents’ intentions to impose restrictions and their actual practice could also be explained by what has been referred to as the “safety versus mobility driving dilemma.” It has been found that parents tended to say they understand that teenage drivers are at an elevated risk for crashes, and both parents and young drivers tended to favor placing restrictions on youth drivers (Beck et al., 2002). However, this appears to conflict with parents’ desire to allow youth mobility and independence (Simons-Morton et al., 2008). Parents might also refrain from placing restrictions because they do not want to ruin their relationship with their child or think they are unnecessary (McCartt et al., 2007).

Parents also influence young drivers (often inadvertently) by serving as (positive or negative) role models through their own driving style (Lahatte & Le Pape, 2008; Taubman-Ben-Ari, Mikulincer, & Gillath, 2005). This is explained by social learning theory, according to which people tend to imitate behaviors of significant others. In addition, also according to family systems theory, multigenerational emotional processes such as perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs are transferred from generation to generation (Miller & Taubman-Ben-Ari, 2010). Prato and colleagues (2009) also found strong correlations between driving patterns of parents and teens from data on actual driving, including overall risk and specific maneuvers.

Parental Responsibility and Conceptions of Social Norms

Peoples’ normative perceptions of others’ practices and attitudes are said to play an important role in their own behavior. The literature refers to this phenomenon as the influence of perceived social norms (Rimal, Lapinski, & Real, 2005; Schultz et al., 2007). Researchers explain that when people believe a certain practice is commonly practiced, in particular by significant others, they are more likely to engage in it themselves. If they believe it is not, they are likely to be less inclined to practice it, even if they believe it could be beneficial (Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986).

One of the theories on behavior change that incorporates conceptions of social norms as a major component is the theory of reasoned action (and in its later version, the theory of planned behavior change). Specifically, it refers to individuals’ subjective normative conceptions of what important others think about performing the behavior (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006). Another important element in this theory is one’s “perceived behavioral control,” or one’s beliefs about one’s ability to carry out the behavior. This corresponds to conceptions of self-efficacy in social cognitive theory, according to which people are more likely to perform a practice if they feel they have the capacity to do so. Accordingly, interventions that aim to influence people to adopt certain safety-enhancing practices should ensure members of the intended population have confidence in their self-efficacy (Bandura, 2004).

Researchers make additional distinctions between different types of normative conceptions that are not included in the theory of planned behavior change. One distinction is between norms associated with social approval of a certain practice, referred to as “injunctive norms” and conceptions of the actual or perceived practice, referred to as “descriptive norms.” Researchers conclude that both types of normative conceptions play an important role in influencing peoples’ practices, but that the influence of normative conceptions depends on the issue and the importance people place on the significant others (Rimal et al., 2005). In the context of road safety it could be inferred that if parents believe imposing restrictions on young drivers is not a prevalent practice they would be less likely to impose restrictions themselves. Therefore, one of the goals of this study was to learn about parents’ conceptions of parental norms regarding driving restrictions.

Social and Cultural Context of the Study

This study was conducted in Israel, and therefore certain characteristics of the context of youth driving should be noted. Youth can begin taking driving lessons at the age of 16.5 years. Driving lessons (a minimum of 28) are given by licensed driving teachers. All new drivers must be accompanied by an experienced driver whenever they drive for the first 3 months after obtaining the driving license. In addition, for a period of 2 years after licensure, the number of passengers is limited to two, excluding the driver, unless an experienced driver is present in the car. There are no restrictions on nighttime driving. In most families, young drivers do not have their own car and use their parents’ vehicle.

Researchers characterize Jewish middle-class Israeli youth culture as similar to its North American counterpart in its focus on individualistic values but also in the centrality of placing a high value on the family and belonging to a social group (Mayseless & Scharf, 2003). Although Israeli society has various immigrant groups, a relatively similar youth culture of “going out” has developed among nonreligious populations, mostly late on Thursday and Friday nights and returning in the early morning. The main destinations are commercial centers at the outskirts of the cities that offer music, food, cinema, and dancing (Lahav, 1995). Youth who come from outside major urban centers often drive to urban centers on these days weekends and likely to have their peers as passengers. Among religious populations, youth do not drive between Friday evening and Saturday night, and they typically do not engage in going out to clubs.

Method and Participants in the Study

The study consisted of semistructured interviews with parents followed by a phone interview with a structured questionnaire. The mixed-methods approach of the study was used for three main purposes (Bryman, 2006): to extend the range of inquiry (to learn about the extent to which parents’ place driving restrictions), to corroborate findings (to explore conceptions of responsibility in a larger sample with open- and closed-ended items), and to enable asking questions that are answered by quantitative data (by quantifying levels of parents’ concern). Participants in the study were identified through lists of Or Yarok Association for Safer Driving in Israel, a nonprofit organization that specializes, among other activities, in conducting safe driving projects for young drivers. It typically reaches half of the population of families of young drivers in Israel.

The first part of the study used semistructured interviews on the issue of parental responsibility with 20 parents selected from a list of parents who had agreed to install a technology recommended by Or Yarok in the standard meeting with one it its representatives. Arab and ultraorthodox families were excluded from being part of the study because these populations have unique cultural characteristics. There were no special characteristics of those who refused, and the typical reason was that they were busy. Most interviewees were from middle- to high-middle-income nonreligious families, had at least high school education, and lived in the central region of Israel.

The second part of the study was a survey that was drawn from a list of 5,074 families obtained from Or Yarok. Approximately 20% of the sample identified themselves as religious. A similar distribution was found in the general population according to the Central Bureau of Statistics. The sample’s percentage of respondents with less than a high school education was lower than in the general population (2.1% of the sample compared with 11.9% of the general population) and included more individuals with post high school education (65.5% compared with 41.3%). Distributions are listed in Table 1. The survey was conducted by The Tel Aviv University Cohen Institute for Public Opinion, between December 2008 and January 2009. All interviews were conducted in Hebrew. Response rate was 53%, and repeated attempts at contacting each sampled family were made at least five times on different days and at different times, in order to reach as many families as possible. A total of 906 full interviews were obtained from 1,839 contacts, and the refusals were mainly explained by “lack of time.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Survey Sample Characteristics (n = 906)

Variable	Percentage	N
Gender
Male	49.4	448
Female	50.6	458
Religiosity
Religious	34.4	299
Traditional	18.0	156
Secular	47.5	412
Education
Elementary education or less	2.1	19
High school education	32.2	280
Post high school education	65.6	570
Income
Much lower than average	6.1	44
Slightly below the average	12.2	89
Average	24.6	179
Slightly above the average	36.2	263
Much higher than the average	20.9	152

The sample consists of three groups according to “stages” of parents of young drivers (a) ages 17 to 24 who had participated in more than 20 driving lessons but did not yet have a driver’s license (200); (b) with a driver’s license for up to 3 months (358); (c) with a driving license between 3 and 6 months (348). This classification was based on the progression of young drivers according to the law and their independence as drivers. The assumption was their stage might influence parents’ concerns regarding their driving. Most young drivers were aged 17 to 18, of whom 57% were male.

The Interview and Survey Questions

The main questions in the interview guide were about the concerns parents have regarding young drivers’ driving license and to their role and responsibility as it relates to their driving safety. The survey questionnaire was developed after the interviews were completed. This study used 26 questions, mostly closed-ended and two open-ended from a longer questionnaire. The unused items mostly addressed the use of a driving monitoring technology. Parents were asked about their concern regarding their son’s or daughter’s driving when they go out driving on their own, and their concern specifically regarding his or her speeding. The questionnaire was pretested for comprehension. The closed-ended items were on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5.

Parents were also asked if they would like to know how their son/daughter was driving. This was followed by questions regarding their conceptions of parental responsibility for one’s son’s/daughter’s driving as it relates to placing restrictions on their driving: specifically, regarding driving at night, driving when tired, or while using the phone (even when it is not hand held). These items were chosen because they were not required by the law (in contrast to restrictions concerning number of passengers or drinking and driving). Parents were also asked to assess the extent to which they generally enforce these restrictions and to what extent they thought these restrictions should be enforced. Finally, parents were asked to assess parents’ conceptions of their ability to influence the safety of the son’s/daughter’s driving. Questionnaire items are presented in the appendix. This study is the second part of a larger research project that investigated parents’ and young drivers’ views regarding the use of driving-monitoring technologies (Guttman & Gesser-Edelsburg, 2011; Guttman & Lotan, 2010).

Analytic Procedure

The analysis was conducted in several stages. First, interview data from the open-ended interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis that compared and contrasted responses, identified recurring themes, and organized them into categories, while looking to identify patterns and constructs (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This was also conducted with the open-ended questionnaire data. In the second stage, the quantitative data of the survey was analyzed. It included a comparison of the responses of parents according to stage of driving of their child, parents’ and young drivers’ gender, income level, educational level, and religiosity, and according to parents’ expressed level of concern regarding their son’s/daughter’s driving.

The statistical analysis consisted mainly of χ² tests to compare the distributions of answers in different groups (e.g., fathers and mothers) and a t-statistic was used to compare levels of agreement with two statements by the same individual. A multivariate analysis of the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and parents’ concern and involvement was conducted as well. In the third stage, the open-ended data from the questionnaire were analyzed according to the main themes and categories that emerged by using a comparative coding system. The initial coding was done by a research assistant, and the main thematic analysis was done by the author. The analysis of the qualitative data resulted in an identification of two types of approaches regarding parental responsibility drawing on a grounded theory approach (Glaser, 1998).

Concerns regarding other youths’ driving compared with their own

Anxiety about other youths’ driving was a dominant and recurring theme in the interviews. This was not an issue that was asked about specifically, and it was brought up by the parents themselves. Parents typically described other youth drivers as “wild” or nonadhering to road safety rules. One parent expressed her concern that her son, whom she described as calm and composed, might injure someone else inadvertently because of the other young driver’s lack of respect for driving rules. Another mother said similarly, “I am afraid of the other young drivers, who drive like crazy, have no fear.” A father said, “Young drivers tend to drive as if they own the road, pass lanes, and in general do not bother to adhere to traffic rules.” One mother said she is concerned because young drivers acquire an “intoxicating sense of freedom that comes with driving.” Some parents said they were concerned about young drivers being unaware of how lethal a vehicle can be.

The view that the other young drivers are the ones who pose the danger—not one’s own son/daughter—was also found in the quantitative data. When asked to compare their son’s/daughter’s driving safety to other young drivers, most parents (nearly 80%) responded they believed their son/daughter was more careful than other drivers (23% said “much more careful,” and 57% said “more careful”). About a fifth (18%) responded “the same,” and only 2% said they were less careful. No differences were found according to gender or other factors, such as the young driver’s stage of driving or the driver’s age.

Parents’ confidence in their own child’s driving

Parents mostly expressed their confidence in their son’s/daughter’s driving, despite their concerns regarding their lack of driving experience. Parents described their own son/daughter as responsible and trustworthy. As one mother said, “I trust him with my eyes closed.” When asked in the closed-ended questions to what extent they were concerned about the driving of their son/daughter when they go out to drive on their own, about a third responded “moderately,” and another third responded they were not concerned or only to a small extent. Less than 40% reported they were either “very” or “extremely” concerned (19% and 18%, respectively). Those who were more concerned about their child’s speeding were also more likely to have a lower assessment of his or her safety in driving (r = –.28, df = 823, p < .001).

Concerns regarding young drivers’ inexperience

Parents expressed concerns about the lack of experience of their son/daughter as young drivers. For example, a father said that his daughter “does not know how to make careful turns” and that she is unaware of specific hazards because of her lack of experience. Parents were concerned that the young drivers are unable to predict things that can happen on the road because of their lack of experience. A mother said that although her son is very reliable, she has great concerns about his lack of experience as a driver and being able to respond to unanticipated hazards. The issue of lack of experience also emerged when parents said that one of their obligations is to give the young drivers tips about driving, described in the section on parental responsibility.

Concerns regarding the influence of friends

Peer influence was repeated as a reason for concern. Even parents who believed their son/daughter was a cautious driver worried he or she could be influenced by their peers. For example, a mother said, “I worry about the influence of friends . . . there’s music . . . he doesn’t put both hands on the steering wheel.”

Concerns and gender

Although the frequency of young male drivers in accidents is higher than that of females, parents did not appear to worry more about sons’ driving than daughters’ driving. However, the gender of the parent was related to level of concern: More mothers showed concern than fathers (21.4% of the mothers were “extremely worried” compared with 16.5% of the fathers, and 20.5% of the mothers were “very worried” compared with 15.8% of the fathers (χ² = 11.82, df = 4, p < .05). ¹

Concerns and driving stage

Parents’ concerns were negatively correlated with the young driver’s driving stage. The more advanced the stage, the less concern was noted (51% whose child was still in the stage of learning were “very concerned” compared with 37% of those whose child had a license between 3 and 6 months, and 30% whose child had a license up to three months (χ² = 26.64, df = 4, p < .001). Thus, parents appear to feel that within 6 months of driving, young drivers gain considerable experience.

Concerns regarding speeding

Although studies indicate that young drivers, especially males, are at relatively risk for speeding, parents (both men and women) did not report great concern regarding their son’s/daughter’s speeding. In the closed-ended data, only 12% responded that they were “very” or “extremely” concerned about it. A quarter expressed “moderate” concern, and about a third reported “very little” or no concern. There were gender differences: More parents of sons expressed higher concern (15.6% for sons; 7.7% for daughters; χ² = 17.87, df = 4, p < .001).

Parents’ conceptions of imposing restrictions on the young drivers

Parents were asked about their normative conceptions regarding imposing three types of restrictions on young drivers: restrictions on driving at late hours of the night, talking on a cell phone while driving (even when it is not hand held), and driving when tired. They were also asked to assess how many families enforced these restrictions. Most parents assessed that among parents in general only a minority used restrictions regarding driving at later hours of the night or talking on the phone while driving. However, more assessed that parents restrict driving when tired. A statistically significant difference was found when parents’ assessment of placing restrictions on driving tired was compared with their assessment of restrictions regarding talking on the phone (paired samples: t(688) = −10.64, p < .001) or on driving at later hours of the night (paired samples: t(709) = −8.40, p < .001). Restrictions on driving tired were perceived as more prevalent.

Differences according to gender were found only regarding the assessment of driving at night, for which more parents of females (13.3%) thought most families impose this restriction compared with parents of males (8.2%), but in both the percentages are relatively low. The findings are presented in Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Parents’ assessment of the practiced norms of imposing restrictions in young drivers’ families

Parents’ conception whether restrictions should be enforced

Parents in the survey were asked whether parents should place the restrictions on driving in the 1st year after young drivers receive their license. Nearly three-quarters thought parents should (41% “to a very great extent” and 36% “to a great extent”). Support for restrictions and for involvement was found to be related: The more parents agreed parents should enforce restrictions they were more likely to respond that parents should be involved in the driving of new drivers (r = .22, p < .001). There were gender differences regarding support for enforcing restrictions: More women (44.6%) supported them “to a very great extent” than men (37.2%), and more men thought they should only do so very little or not at all (men 9.2% and women 4.7%; χ² = 14.30, df = 5, p < .05).

Support of restrictions was also found to be related to parental concern: The more the parent was concerned about the young driver’s driving, the more they tended to support restrictions (r = .09, p < .01). However, among parents who expressed a low level of concern, some did not follow this pattern. There were 50 respondents who said they were not concerned about their child’s driving but nonetheless supported restrictions. This could probably be explained by the support parents had in general for parental involvement, discussed further below.

A gap was found between what parents perceived as the practiced norms of parental restrictions on driving and what they thought those norms should be. When comparing the normative assessment of what is practiced to what should be practiced, a weak association was found (r = .09, df = 735, p < .05 for restrictions on driving late at night; r = .08, df = 754, p < .05 for driving while talking on the phone; and r = .08, df = 769, p < .05 for driving when tired). The main quantitative findings on parents’ conceptions regarding placing restrictions are presented in Table 2.

Parents’ assessment of parents’ inability to influence youth driving

Parents said they felt being a parent of a young driver is very difficult and that they had mixed feelings about their ability to influence the driving of the young driver. They said what they can mainly do is warn and advise them, but they cannot limit their driving. One father lamented how difficult it is to enforce restrictions, although he knows that when he is not in the car, his children are less careful in their driving. This conception of inability to influence the young drivers was also found in the quantitative findings.

To learn about parents’ conceptions of parental influence, parents in the survey were asked to assess the percentage of parents who feel they are not able to influence the safety of their children’s driving. Nearly half (47%) assessed that “most” parents felt this way, 28% assessed half, and 25% assessed that only a small number did. Thus, most parents felt that a substantial number of parents feel they have limited influence on the driving of youth drivers.

Parents’ conceptions of parental involvement in young drivers’ driving

Most parents said parents should be involved in young drivers driving to a great extent (79.3%; 49.6%”to a very great extent” and 29.7% “great extent”). The explanation that emerged in the interviews was that parents should be involved mainly because of young drivers’ lack of driving experience, as described in the section of parental concerns. Mothers were somewhat more likely to think parents should be involved than fathers (52.4% of women thought they should be “to a very great extent” compared with 46.6% of men; χ² = 9.58, df = 4, p < .05). Parental involvement was found to be related to level of parental concern. Parents who said they had a higher level of concern were more likely to support involvement (r = .16, df = 880, p < .001).

A few religious parents said they were less concerned about their child’s driving because he or she does not drink or drive on weekends. As one mother explained, “My son is very responsible . . . He doesn’t drink alcohol and he uses the car just to take him from one place to another.” This attitude was reflected in the finding that parents’ level of religiousness was associated with a relatively lower tendency to think parents should be involved in young drivers’ driving (r = .09, df = 896, p < .005). Although this association was found to be weak, it persisted when controlling for other sociodemographic variables. A possible explanation is that in Israel the youth culture of religious youth typically does not involve going to youth concerts, parties, or clubs that involve drinking alcohol, or driving at late hours of the night. This can explain a relatively lower perception of driving risk and need for parental involvement among religious parents.

Four types of parental obligations emerged from the qualitative data:

Two Contrasting Approaches to Parental Responsibility

Two contrasting approaches regarding parental responsibility and involvement as they relate to youth’s driving were identified in the open-ended items of the survey and in the interview responses. These have been developed as a typology presented in Figure 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Parents’ conceptions of parental responsibility regarding young drivers’ driving as it relates to their conceptions of young drivers’ capabilities and responsibilities

Approach No. 1, shared by most parents, was that parents need to be involved and should even try to monitor their son’s/daughter’s driving. A recurring expression was that parents should not “have their heads in the sand,” meaning they should not try to ignore the risk in youth’s driving and should be proactive about it. This approach was characterized mainly by three conceptions:

Approach No. 2 could be characterized as “low parental responsibility and involvement,” and it can be characterized by the following four main conceptions:

Contradiction Regarding Parental Conceptions of Risk

Youth driving is universally associated with risk (Groeger, 2006; Simons-Morton et al., 2008). Parents in this study appeared to be well aware of this risk. However, one of the striking findings of this study was that many tended to express confidence in the driving safety of their own son or daughter, while expressing grave concerns regarding young drivers’ driving in general.

This contradiction could be explained by what researchers call people’s “optimistic bias”: People’s tendency to perceive their own risk as relatively lower compared with others. This tendency was also found in drivers’ assessments of their own driving (Harré, 2007; McKenna, 1993). However, it was striking to see the extent to which this tendency was found in parents’ assessment of their own son’s/daughter’s driving safety compared with their assessment of others. Parents attributed the main risk to the driving of other young drivers, while at the same time acknowledging that their own son or daughter has limited driving skills and experience.

Contradiction Regarding Parental Conceptions of Responsibility

Parents’ conceptions of parental responsibility reveals a gap between what they thought the norm should be and their assessment what is actually practiced regarding placing driving restrictions on young drivers. This study’s findings indicate there is a gap between parents’ normative conceptions regarding what parents should do and what they could do to realize this obligation. These findings correspond to the findings that young drivers report that their parents do not tend to impose restrictions on their driving (Hartos, Shattuck, Simons-Morton, & Beck, 2004).

Parents also assessed that parents in general feel they are unable to influence young drivers’ driving. This contradicts their view that parents should be involved and should employ restrictions on their son’s or daughter’s driving, as recommended in the road safety literature (Simons-Morton et al., 2008). Similar findings on parents’ conceptions of limited capacities were found in other studies (Simons-Morton et al., 2006). Some parents in this study implicitly pointed to a potential contradiction when they said parents try to avoid thinking about this responsibility.

In previous studies the gap found between parents’ concerns, their intentions to impose limits on young driver’s driving, and their actual practice of not imposing limits was explained by saying they want to enable young drivers to be mobile on their own (Simons-Morton et al., 2008). An additional explanation, drawing on the findings of this study and on social norms theory, is that parents might be reluctant to place restrictions because they believe it is not a prevalent norm.

These conceptions have implications to the design of information campaigns. Researchers propose that parents need to be empowered to manage their teen’s driving experience more rigorously (Sherman et al., 2004). Research findings indicate that young drivers themselves do not necessarily always oppose restrictions because they themselves need to cope with the norms of youth’s driving culture (Tilleczek, 2004; Vick, 2005). Drawing on social norms theory (Linkenbach & Wesley Perkins, 2005), such campaigns could inform parents there is a wide support for parental involvement and for placing restrictions on young drivers’ driving, and that this can help reduce young drivers’ risk (Beck et al., 2002; Williams, Ferguson, Leaf, & Preusser, 1998).

The findings in this study also point to an interesting distinction that the parents make between different types of restrictions and to which one they might have less control over. The parents in this study thought restrictions regarding tiredness are more enforced than on driving late at night. This could be explained by the study’s cultural context, in which an accepted norm (mainly among nonreligious populations) is that youth go out on weekends to entertainment centers during late hours of the night. Because parents feel this is a widely accepted norm this could influence their conception that they cannot deprive their child from joining his or her peers. Consequently, they are not likely to restrict late night driving. In contrast, restrictions related to tiredness might be viewed as more accepted because the danger associated with driving tired is more evident. Placing restrictions on driving when tired does not contradict with any other accepted social norm. Also, parents might believe that in the case of tiredness they could estimate how tired their child might be or whether they got a sufficient amount of sleep.

A “social norming” approach could be employed to encourage placing various restrictions on youth driving that could reduce their driving risk by (a) reporting on the relatively high level of support norms regarding restricting young drivers’ driving receive among the parents and perhaps even among the young drivers themselves, and (b) creating a discussion about what the norms should be regarding the various conditions that can put young drivers at high risk (Best, 2006). Parents’ groups, educators, and youth could engage in discussions about driving restrictions for youth drivers. These discussions could aim to find alternative means to enable youth to reach and safely return from entertainment venues or to create entertainment venues in their close vicinity.

Interestingly, the parents in this study rarely referred to the parental responsibility of being a “role model,” although its importance is stressed in the literature (Lahatte & Le Pape, 2008; Miller & Taubman-Ben-Ari, 2010) and young drivers themselves believe it is important (Guttman & Gesser-Edelsburg, 2011). One possible explanation is that this issue is rarely the topic of information campaigns (Guttman & Klar, 2009). In Israel possibly the only programs that address the issue of parental involvement in driving is conducted by the organization that sponsored this study, but its programs are mainly limited to a one-time meeting with parents and young drivers on the accompanying stage.

Limitations of the Study

The study has several limitations which should be noted. The sampling procedure was used on a population of parents consisting of families from a database of young drivers who are in the process of learning and have chosen to provide their details in order to receive free guidance for the accompanied driving period. This database contains about 70% to 80% of the total relevant population but the sample is not fully representative of the overall parental population, and it has a higher level of education and income. However, these factors were not found to be important in the analysis.

The parents interviewed in the semistructured interviews were also recruited from this list. The issue of placing restrictions was only mentioned briefly in the interviews and served as the basis for the survey. Therefore, it was not discussed more in-depth in the interviews. Another limitation is that parents were not asked directly about placing restrictions regarding drinking and driving. This was done because the focus was on restrictions that are not according to the law. However, it is important to learn about how parents view this issue as it relates to parental responsibility. Further studies should explore parents’ conceptions of responsibility in broader terms and among diverse populations. In addition, it is important to explore young drivers’ conceptions of parental responsibility.