Content uploaded by Amir Ghanbari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amir Ghanbari on Apr 21, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teen perceptions of parental monitoring and its impact on their risky road
behavior: An analysis of the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey
Amir Ghanbari
a,b,*
, Matison Howard
c
, Joseph Cavanaugh
b,d
, Cara Hamann
a,b
a
Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, 145 N Riverside Dr, S449 CPHB, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
b
Injury Prevention Research Center, University of Iowa, 145 N Riverside Dr, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
c
Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa, 145 N Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
d
Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Health, 145 N Riverside Dr., Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Risky Road Behavior
Driver
Passenger
Perceived Parental Monitoring
NYRBS
Teens
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Risky road behaviors (RRBs), including driving-related (e.g., texting while driving, driving under
the inuence) and passenger-related (e.g., not wearing seat belts, riding with a drunk driver) behaviors,
contribute signicantly to injury and death among adolescents. This study aims to analyze how perceived
parental monitoring by teens impacts their passenger- and driver- related risky road behaviors. Methods: Data
from the 2021 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (NYRBS) were analyzed to examine the association between
teens’ perception of parental monitoring and engagement in driving-related and passenger-related risky road
behaviors. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AOR). Results: A strong
perception of parental monitoring consistently demonstrated a protective effect against driving-related risky
behaviors (AOR =0.63, 95% CI: 0.53–0.74) and passenger-related risky behaviors (AOR =0.62, 95% CI:
0.53–0.72) when compared to those with lower perceptions. Teens sleeping in public places had notably higher
odds of driving-related risky behaviors (AOR =2.99, 95% CI: 2.01–4.46) compared to those sleeping at home.
Males were less likely to engage in passenger-related risky behaviors (AOR =0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.97) but more
likely to engage in driving-related risky behaviors (AOR =1.28, 95% CI: 1.12–1.47). Conclusions: Perceived
parental monitoring was associated with reduced engagement in both passenger- and driving-related risky road
behaviors among teen drivers and passengers. Safety interventions aimed at reducing risky road behaviors
among teens should include strategies for strengthening parental involvement, emphasizing supervision and
communication. Practical Applications: Our ndings suggest that parental monitoring could play a signicant role
in reducing teens’ engagement in risky road behaviors. Safety programs should empower parents in the use of
effective parental monitoring strategies, such as active supervision and better communication.
1. Introduction
Motor-vehicle crashes remain a critical public health issue, ranking
as the leading cause of death among ages 5 to 29 (WHO, 2023). In the
United Sates, there are an estimated 233 million licensed drivers, with
approximately 5% of those being teenagers (NHTSA, 2023). Despite
their relatively small proportion as drivers, teenagers disproportionately
contribute to motor-vehicle crashes due to their higher propensity for
engaging in risky road behaviors (RRBs) (NHTSA, 2023).
The National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA) re-
ported an estimated 40,990 deaths from motor-vehicle crashes in 2023,
with youth ages 15–24 accounting for 7,016, a 3% increase compared to
2022 (NHTSA, 2024). Alarmingly, young drivers, particularly those
aged 15–20, are the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted at
the time of the fatal crashes (NHTSA, 2021). A prominent example is
texting while driving, with 39% of U.S. high school students reporting
this behavior within the past 30 days (CDC, 2024). In addition, underage
drinking remains a signicant factor, with 30% of young drivers aged 15
to 20 who died in crashes in 2022 having blood alcohol concentrations
(BACs) of 0.01 g/dl or more (NHTSA, 2022).
Risky road behaviors among teens are not only limited to their
behavior as drivers but also extend to their roles as passengers, which
can equally contribute to adverse outcomes. For instance, riding with an
impaired driver is a particularly signicant yet relatively overlooked
* Corresponding author at: Department of Epidemiology, University of Iowa, 145 N Riverside Dr, S449 CPHB, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
E-mail address: amir-ghanbari@uiowa.edu (A. Ghanbari).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Safety Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2025.03.007
Received 14 October 2024; Received in revised form 28 January 2025; Accepted 25 March 2025
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
Available online 9 April 2025
0022-4375/© 2025 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
measure compared to actual drunk driving. Li et al. (2014) found that
adolescents who frequently ride with impaired drivers are up to 30 times
more likely to drive under the inuence themselves after they have
obtained a license (Li et al., 2014). In their study, Cartwright and
Asbridge (2011) found that perceptions of social acceptability and peer
or role models’ behavior heavily inuence passengers’ decisions to ride
with impaired drivers (Cartwright & Asbridge, 2011).
Another pervasive risky passenger behavior among teens is not
wearing a seatbelt. One study found that only 57% of high school stu-
dents reported to always wear seat belts when riding with others
(Yellman, 2020). This lack of compliance is concerning given the well-
established evidence that seat belts reduce serious crash-related in-
juries and fatalities for all age groups by approximately 50% (Kahane,
2000). Despite its proven effectiveness, peer misperceptions signi-
cantly affect compliance rates. In a study by Litt et al. (2014), it was
found that teens often underestimate the prevalence of seat belt usage
among their peers, which ultimately causes a lower rate of personal
compliance (Litt et al., 2014).
Parents play a pivotal role in preventing teens from engaging in risky
behaviors. The perception of parental monitoring, as dened by Stattin
et al. (2010), involves setting boundaries and encouraging open
communication about a child’s activities, whereabouts, and companions
(Stattin et al., 2010). This form of monitoring has been found to be
associated with reduced risks of teens risky behavior and substance use,
such as drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes (CDC, 2023). Consistently,
parental monitoring has been shown to reduce violence, risky sexual
activity, alcohol and drug consumption, and increase positive health
outcomes in teens (Dittus, 2023; Stattin et al., 2010).
In the context of road behavior, other types of parental monitoring
were found to be associated with reduced risky behaviors. For example,
Ginsburg et al. (2009) found that authoritative parenting, which bal-
ances warmth with consistent enforcement, reduces risky driving be-
haviors, such as driving under the inuence, and promotes safer
practices, such as wearing seatbelts (Ginsburg et al., 2009). Namoos
et al. (2024) further indicated that parents who actively discuss alcohol-
related risks with their teens and model responsible behaviors, such as
avoiding drinking and driving, have an important impact on their teens’
attitudes toward impaired driving, fostering a more negative perception
of that behavior (Namoos et al., 2024). Similarly, Glenn et al. (2024)
highlighted that parental interventions emphasizing communication
and accountability signicantly decrease the likelihood of teens riding
with impaired drivers (Glenn et al., 2024). Other aspects of parental
monitoring, such as structured agreements on limiting high-risk condi-
tions like night driving (which are also mandated by Graduate Driving
License (GDL) laws in most states; Williams et al., 2006), supervised
practice driving and hazard recognition training (Curry et al., 2015),
and innovative tools like event-triggered video feedback paired with
parental reviews (McGehee et al., 2007), have also been found effective.
In line with previous research, it is important to examine which di-
mensions of monitoring are most effective in preventing teens from
engaging in risky behavior. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study
in the context of road behaviors used the denition of monitoring as
teens’ perceptions of how often their parents know where they are and
who they are with. Further, since there may be differences in the ante-
cedents of driving-related versus passenger-related risky behaviors, we
will examine the effects of perceived parental monitoring separately for
these two groups. Despite prior studies that had some limitations due to
small sample sizes, this study uses a large, nationally representative
sample. The main hypotheses of the study are as follows:
H1: Teens who perceive higher levels of parental monitoring are less
likely to engage in driving-related risky road behaviors (e.g., drunk
driving and texting while driving).
H2: Teens who perceive higher levels of parental monitoring are less
likely to engage in passenger-related risky road behaviors (e.g., riding
with impaired drivers and not wearing seat belts).
2. Methods
2.1. Data Source
This study used the 2021 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey
(NYRBS), as the main exposure (i.e., perceived parental monitoring was
not included until the 2021 survey). NYRBS is a nationally representa-
tive survey of high school students in grades 9 – 12 and is conducted by
the CDC using a three-stage, cluster (1-county, 2-school, 3-classroom)
sample design to obtain the responses randomly. The NYRBS collects
data from both public and private schools and is administered every odd
year (CDC, 2021).
2.2. Variables
Perceived Parental monitoring by teens, the main exposure of in-
terest, was analyzed using one question, “How often do your parents or
other adults know where you are going or with whom you will be?”
Responses were categorized based on teens’ perception of parental
monitoring into two groups: low parental monitoring (never, rarely, or
sometimes) and high parental monitoring (most of the time or always).
To measure teens’ engagement in risky road behavior, we analyzed two
outcomes: risky driving behaviors and risky passenger behaviors. The
nature of these outcomes was believed to differ; therefore, they were
distinguished. Risky driving behaviors included drunk driving or texting
while driving and was measured using two questions: “During the past
30 days, how many times did you drive a car or other vehicle when you
had been drinking alcohol? (both with options ranging from "I did not
drive a car or other vehicle during the past 30 days, "0 times" to "6 or
more times"); During the past 30 days, on how many days did you text or
e-mail while driving a car or other vehicle? (with options ranging from "I
did not drive a car or other vehicle during the past 30 days," "0 days" to
"All 30 days"). Furthermore, given the study’s age range, some partici-
pants were under the legal driving age. To ensure the analysis of risky
driving-related behaviors only included those who reported driving,
respondents who selected "I did not drive a car or other vehicle during the
past 30 days" in either question were excluded from the analysis. Risky
passenger behavior included riding in a car with a drunk driver or not
using seatbelt and was measured using these two questions: How often
do you wear a seat belt when riding in a car driven by someone else?
(with options ranging from “Never” to “Always”); During the past 30
days, how many times did you ride in a car or other vehicle driven by
someone who had been drinking alcohol? “Any non-zero or non-al-
ways"“ or "Most of the time" response, reecting involvement in at least
one type of risky behavior, was considered risky driving or risky pas-
senger behavior.
It is important to note that NYRBS questions on alcohol consumption
and driving do not detail the number of drinks, but rather the number of
times the individual consumed alcohol and drove or rode with someone
known to have consumed alcohol.
Possible confounders and covariates explored included sleep place,
sex, age, and race. Sleep place was categorized into three groups (home
of parent/guardian, home of other people, other places). Sex (male, fe-
male) and race (Black or African American, white, Hispanic/Latino, all
other races (includes American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native
Hawaiian or other Pacic Islander)) categories were kept the same as the
NYRBS standard variables. Age was categorized based on typical driving
restrictions. Since restrictions can vary across states, age was catego-
rized as 15 and younger, 16, 17, and 18 and older.
2.3. Data analysis
With a binary outcome, engagement in RRB, logistic regression
analysis was used. The analysis was adjusted to account for the survey’s
stratication, clustering, and weighting to ensure representativeness of
ndings. Initially, the effects of each independent variable were
A. Ghanbari et al.
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
343
examined in univariable analyses. Then, a multivariable logistic
regression model was built to examine the association between
perceived parental monitoring and RRB, adjusting for potential
confounders.
Each of the four risky behaviors assessed in this study-drunk driving,
texting while driving, not wearing seatbelts, and riding with an impaired
driver-was originally analyzed separately. However, it was found that
driving behavior and passenger behavior exhibited similar patterns.
These categories were combined for the purpose of the main analysis.
To address the issue of missing data, sensitivity analyses were con-
ducted to determine whether the underlying demographic factors differ
between respondents and non-respondents. A multiple imputation
method was also employed to ensure the validity of the results and to
account for the potential bias introduced by missing data.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
Out of 17,232 students surveyed, 5.3% engaged in risky passenger
behaviors, and of the 8,962 students who reported driving, 5.7%
engaged in risky driving behaviors (Table 1). Students who perceived
higher parental monitoring reported lower rates of risky road behavior
(2.9% passenger, 3.3% driving) compared to those with lower percep-
tion parental monitoring (11.9% passenger, 14.5% driving).
Those who slept at their parents’ or guardians’ homes had the lowest
rates of risky road behaviors (4.6% passenger, 4.6% driving) compared
to those sleeping at others’ homes (15.7% passenger, 16.3% driving) or
in public places (20.4% passenger, 38.7% driving). Risky road behaviors
also increased with age, with students aged 15 and younger reporting
the lowest rates (5% passenger, 2.6% driving) and 18-year-olds the
highest (8.6% passenger, 8.8% driving). There was little difference be-
tween males and females with respect to risky passenger behaviors
(5.0% vs. 5.5%), but males were found to report higher rates of risky
driving behaviors (7.1% vs. 4.2%).
3.2. Missing data pattern
The main exposure (perceived parental monitoring) and the con-
founding variable (sleep place) had a high proportion of missing values,
47% and 27%, respectively. To investigate if the pattern of missing data
was random, we compared responders to non-respondents based on key
demographic variables (Table 2). Signicant differences were found
using chi-square testing, which justied the use of multiple imputation
with 25 simulations rather than a complete case analysis.
3.3. Multivariable analysis of youth engagement in risky road behaviors
Teens who perceived higher levels of parental monitoring consis-
tently showed a protective effect against risky road behaviors (RRBs)
compared to those with lower perception of parental monitoring both as
passengers (AOR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.53–0.72) and drivers (AOR =0.63,
95% CI: 0.53–0.74; Table 3). These ndings conrm our two hypotheses
regarding the impact of perceived parental monitoring on both driving-
and passenger-related risky road behaviors among teens. Compared to
those who slept at their parent or guardian’s home, teens who reported
sleeping at other people’s homes were slightly more likely to engage in
risky road behaviors (RRBs) as passengers (AOR =1.32, 95 % CI:
0.90–1.92); however, the relationship was not signicant in driving
(AOR =0.95, 95% CI: 0.61–1.45). On the other hand, teens who
Table 1
Weighted proportion of student demographics and other selected characteristics by perceived parental monitoring, NYRBS, 2021, United States.
Characteristic Risky Passenger Behavior Risky Driving Behavior
Total Yes No Total Yes No
n ¼17232 n ¼911 n ¼16089 n ¼8962 n ¼509 n ¼8453
n n % N % n n % n %
Perceived Parental Monitoring
High Monitoring 11,296 323 2.9 10,946 96.9
Ʒ
6015 201 3.3 5814 96.7
Low Monitoring 1774 209 11.9 1552 87.5 970 141 14.5 829 85.5
Missing (8140)
Sleep Place (SP)
Home of parent or guardian 15,104 700 4.6 14,200 94 7757 356 4.6 7401 95.4
Home of other people 261 41 15.7 215 82.4 141 23 16.3 119 84.4
Other places (hotel, public places, etc.,) 358 73 20.4 276 77.1 222 86 38.7 136 61.3
Missing (4598)
Age
15 or younger 7816 390 5 7329 93.8 2558 67 2.6 2491 97.4
16 years old 4226 224 5.3 3957 93.6 2754 156 5.7 2598 94.3
17 years old 4049 191 4.7 3816 94.2 2859 212 7.4 2647 92.6
18 years and older 1000 86 8.6 906 90.6 737 65 8.8 672 91.2
Missing (137)
Sex
Female 8201 453 5.5 7661 93.4 4232 178 4.2 4054 95.8
Male 8783 442 5 8235 93.8 4641 329 7.1 4312 92.9
Missing (264)
Race
White 8534 400 4.7 8121 95.2 4807 260 5.4 4546 94.6
Black or African American 2036 144 7.1 1880 92.3 1022 62 6.1 960 93.9
Hispanic/Latino 4274 264 6.2 3966 92.8 2129 131 6.2 1998 93.8
All other races 1988 78 3.9 1796 90.3 802 44 5.5 757 94.4
Missing (432)
Ʒ: Numbers in row do not add up to 100 % because of missing values in outcome variables.
Note: The overall total (17,232) reects raw data, while all other numbers are weighted estimates. Missing values are based on raw data.
A. Ghanbari et al.
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
344
reported sleeping in public places, such as shelters or hotels, were
signicantly more likely to engage in driving-related RRBs (AOR =2.99,
95% CI: 2.01–4.46), whereas the increased odds for passengers were not
statistically signicant (AOR =1.48, 95% CI: 0.96–2.30).
Compared to adolescents aged 15 or younger, those aged 18 and
older had signicantly higher odds of engaging in RRBs as passengers
(AOR =1.48, 95% CI: 1.14–1.91) and also as drivers (AOR =1.36, 95%
CI: 0.91–2.05) but not signicantly. Accordingly, 17-year-old teens
showed similar elevated odds of driving-related RRBs (AOR =1.45, 95%
CI: 1.14–1.86). The odds of passenger-related RRBs were lower for 17-
year-olds (AOR =0.78, 95% CI: 0.65–0.94), similar for 16-year-olds
compared to their younger peers (15 or younger).
The odds of males engaging in risky passenger behaviors were lower
than those of females (AOR =0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.97). However, the
odds of engaging in risky driving-related behavior were opposite, with
males more likely to engage (AOR =1.28, 95% CI: 1.12–1.47) compared
to females.
Race/ethnicity did not have a substantial association with risky road
behaviors (RRBs). There were no signicant differences in RRBs for
either passenger or driver related risky behavior between any of the
racial groups.
4. Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to examine the association be-
tween perceived parental monitoring and youth engagement in risky
driving and passenger behaviors. Using data from the 2021 National
Youth Risk Behavior Survey (NYRBS), we found that high level of
perceived parental monitoring was signicantly associated with 37%
reduced risky road behaviors among teens compared to low perceived
parental monitoring. In particular, teens whose parents consistently
knew where they were and with whom they were spending time were
less likely to engage in risky road behaviors, whether as a driver or
passenger. This nding conrmed our hypotheses that a higher
perception of parental monitoring is associated with lower engagement
in both driver- and passenger-related risky road behaviors among teens.
This is consistent with previous studies that emphasized the signicance
of parental supervision in preventing risky behaviors among adolescents
(Beck et al., 2019; Dittus, 2023). The 37% reduction observed in this
study is greater than the reduction observed in the other study that used
the same parental monitoring measure for other risky teen behaviors.
Dittus et al. (2023) found that higher perceived parental monitoring was
associated with 22% lower marijuana use, 9% lower prescription opioid
misuse, and 14% less engagement in risky sexual behaviors, such as not
using a condom, among male and female students (Dittus, 2023). These
ndings indicate the importance of teens’ perception of parental
monitoring in reducing risky road behaviors as well as other forms of
adolescent risk-taking. Studies have also conrmed these protective ef-
fects in the context of road behaviors. For instance, Ehsani et al. (2020)
indicated that parental involvement during the learner phase of driving,
including setting expectations and enforcing rules, signicantly reduced
crash risks during the rst year of driving and may even moderate risk-
taking traits associated with sensation seeking (Ehsani et al., 2020).
Furthermore, other dimensions of monitoring, such as open communi-
cation and setting clear boundaries, were associated with a 71%
reduction in driving under the inuence among teens and an increase in
the use of seat belts (Ginsburg et al., 2009).
We found interesting patterns of the impact of teens’ reported
sleeping places on their road behaviors. There were no signicant dif-
ferences in risky road behaviors among teens who reported sleeping at
other people’s homes, such as with relatives, in comparison to those who
reported sleeping at their parents’ or guardians’ homes. This may indi-
cate that these environments provide a level of supervision and structure
similar to their own homes. In contrast, teens who reported sleeping in
public places, such as shelters or hotels, had higher odds of engaging in
Table 2
Comparative Demographic Distribution of Respondents and Non-Respondents in Perceived Parental Monitoring and Sleep Place.
Perceived |Parental Monitoring Sleep Place
Characteristics Respondents (n ¼9092) Non-Respondents (n ¼8140) Chi-square Respondents
(n ¼12604)
Non-Respondents
(n ¼4628)
Chi-square
N % N % p-value N % N % p-value
Age <0.001 0.003
15 or younger 3801 42.2 4091 50.6 5711 45.7 2181 47.4
16 years old 2313 25.7 1963 24.3 3117 25.0 1159 25.2
17 years old 2264 25.1 1640 20.3 2914 22.3 990 21.5
18 and older 635 7.0 388 4.8 757 6.0 266 5.9
Race <0.001 <0.001
White 4471 50.3 4680 59.15 % 5890 47.9 3261 72.3
Black or African American 1321 14.9 1001 12.65 % 2024 16.5 298 6.6
Hispanic/Latino 1991 22.4 1253 15.84 % 2740 22.3 504 11.2
All other races 1105 12.4 978 12.36 % 1635 13.3 448 9.9
Sex 0.48 0.21
Female 4281 47.8 3871 48.33 % 6005 48.3 2147 47.3
Male 4677 52.2 4139 51.67 % 6419 51.7 2397 52.7
Table 3
Adjusted Odds Ratios of Youth Engagement in Risky Road Behaviors after
Imputation, NYRBS 2021, United States.
Characteristics Odds Ratio (95 % CI)
Passenger-related
Risky Road Behavior
Driver-related Risky
Road Behavior
PERCEIVED PARENTAL MONITORING
Low REFERENCE REFERENCE
High 0.62 (0.53–0.72) 0.63 (0.53–0.74)
SLEEP PLACE
Home of Parent or Guardian REFERENCE REFERENCE
Home of Other People 1.32 (0.9–1.92) 0.95 (0.61–1.45)
Other Places (i.e., public
places, shelters, hotels)
1.48 (0.96–2.3) 2.99 (2.01–4.46)
AGE
15 and Younger REFERENCE REFERENCE
16 Years Old 0.93 (0.74, 1.15) 1.08 (0.83, 1.41)
17 Years Old 0.78 (0.65, 0.94) 1.45 (1.14, 1.86)
18 and Older 1.48 (1.14, 1.91) 1.36 (0.91, 2.05)
SEX
Female REFERENCE REFERENCE
Male 0.91 (0.86, 0.97) 1.28 (1.12, 1.47)
RACE/Ethnicity
White REFERENCE REFERENCE
Black or African American 1.21 (0.98, 1.49) 0.99 (0.70, 1.41)
Hispanic/Latino 1.15 (0.97, 1.37) 1.07 (0.87, 1.32)
All Other Races 0.77 (0.57, 1.04) 0.80 (0.62, 1.04)
A. Ghanbari et al.
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
345
risky road behaviors either as a driver or a passenger. This marked in-
crease likely reects the impact of environmental instability, as well as
possible a lack of supervision in these settings. It is also possible that
different exposures to driving contribute to the observed patterns, as
teens reported sleeping in public environments may have different op-
portunities for driving or different restrictions on their driving and
passenger behaviors. Further research is needed to distinguish between
these factors.
It was also found that there are notable sex differences in risky road
behaviors, with males being more likely than females to engage in
driving-related risky road behaviors. There is considerable literature
indicating that males are more likely to engage in risky driving behav-
iors, including distracted driving or impaired driving (Stavrinos et al.,
2020; White, 2020). In contrast, our results showed that females had a
higher likelihood of engaging in passenger-related risky behavior (e.g.,
riding in a vehicle with a drunk driver). Prior research has shown that
females were more likely than males to ride with a drunk driver due to a
limited availability of safe transportation options and sex social dy-
namics that inuence decision making in such situations (Poulin et al.,
2007).
We found mixed effects of age on teens’ risky road behaviors. In
comparison with those aged 15 and younger, 17-year-olds were less
likely to engage in passenger-related risky behaviors, such as not
wearing a seatbelt or riding with a drunk driver. However, they were
signicantly more likely to engage in risky driving behaviors such as
texting while driving or driving while intoxicated. Many of these 17-
year-olds are still subject to GDL restrictions, such as being unable to
travel with passengers or use cell phones while driving. Despite these
restrictions, some studies indicate that certain driving-related risky be-
haviors, such as texting while driving, may actually increase. Teenagers
may attempt to conceal their mobile phone use by texting “on the sly,”
leading to increased levels of distraction behind the wheel (McCartt
et al., 2014). Combining this trend with inexperience and the pressures
of adapting to independent driving responsibilities, may contribute to
the higher rate of driving-related risky behavior observed in this age
group. We found a slightly different pattern of risky road behaviors for
18-year-olds. While passenger-related risky road behaviors were
signicantly higher than those aged 15 and younger, their higher
engagement in driving-related risky road behaviors was not statistically
signicant. This may be explained by the phenomenon of delayed
licensure, in which teens have been waiting for a license for longer pe-
riods of time due to economic, regulatory, or social factors (Vaca et al.,
2021). Therefore, 18-year-olds may be more likely to be passengers
rather than drivers, increasing their exposure to risky situations as
passengers.
4.1. Limitations
Several limitations were present in this study that could affect our
ndings. First, using self-reported data may have led to an underesti-
mation of RRBs due to social desirability bias. Second, the use of mul-
tiple imputation to handle missing data might have introduced bias,
particularly if the data were not completely missing at random. Third,
there was an assumption that teens living in non-traditional sleeping
situations would have perceived lower levels of parental monitoring.
However, this may not always be accurate, as teens with such sleeping
arrangements could still be with their parents and have high levels of
monitoring perception. Further limitations of the dataset include reli-
ance on a single measure of parental monitoring based on student
perception, and the lack of information about driver licensing status,
family socioeconomic status (SES), which limits the generalizability of
driving-related ndings to only those students who self-identied as
having driven in the past 30 days. Additionally, the dataset does not
include other risky road behavior measures, such as speeding. Despite
these limitations, this study provides a rst look at the impact of teens’
perception of parental monitoring on risky road behaviors and the
associations observed provide useful insights for informing intervention
development and public health prevention strategies. Further research
using additional data sources would be benecial to more examine the
role of GDL programs alongside parental monitoring and other factors
such as driver license status, SES on the risky road behaviors examined.
5. Conclusion/implications
The study emphasizes the need for parental monitoring and focused
interventions in reducing risky road behaviors among adolescents.
Increased parental involvement, dened in this study as parents
knowing where their teen is and who they are with, is associated with
decreased risky road behaviors both as a driver and as a passenger
among teens. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to create age and sex
specic interventions, as the ndings showed RRB variability across
different demographics. Approaches that consider developmental stage,
age, and sex are critical for effectively minimizing road-related risk
factors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Amir Ghanbari: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft,
Visualization, Validation, Software, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Matison Howard: Writing – review &
editing, Visualization, Data curation, Conceptualization. Joseph Cav-
anaugh: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology. Cara
Hamann: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administra-
tion, Data curation, Conceptualization.
Funding
This research did not receive any specic grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-prot sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge Jon Davis for his help on analyses.
References
Beck, L. F., Kresnow, M.-J., & Bergen, G. (2019). Belief about seat belt use and seat belt
wearing behavior among front and rear seat passengers in the United States. Journal
of Safety Research, 68, 81–88.
Cartwright, J., & Asbridge, M. (2011). Passengers’ decisions to ride with a driver under
the inuence of either alcohol or cannabis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72
(1), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2011.72.86
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021). Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System (YRBSS). https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.
html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2023). Parental monitoring. https
://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/protective/factsheets/parental_monitoring_factsheet
.htm.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024). Distracted Driving Risk Factors.
https://www.cdc.gov/distracted-driving/risk-factors/index.html.
Curry, A. E., Peek-Asa, C., Hamann, C. J., & Mirman, J. H. (2015). Effectiveness of
Parent-Focused Interventions to Increase Teen Driver Safety: A Critical Review. The
Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(1 Suppl), S6–S. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2015.01.003
Dittus, P. J. (2023). Parental monitoring and risk behaviors and experiences among high
school students—Youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2021. MMWR
supplements, 72.
Ehsani, J. P., Gershon, P., Grant, B. J. B., Zhu, C., Klauer, S. G., Dingus, T. A., & Simons-
Morton, B. G. (2020). Learner driver experience and teenagers’ crash risk during the
rst year of independent driving. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(6), 573–580. https://doi.org/
10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0208
A. Ghanbari et al.
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
346
Ginsburg, K. R., Durbin, D. R., García-Espa˜
na, J. F., Kalicka, E. A., & Winston, F. K.
(2009). Associations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related
behaviors and attitudes. Pediatrics, 124(4), 1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2008-3037
Glenn, S. D., Turrisi, R., Mallett, K. A., Waldron, K. A., & Lenker, L. K. (2024).
Examination of brief parent-based interventions to reduce drinking outcomes on a
nationally representative sample of teenagers. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 74
(3), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2023.09.010
Kahane, C. J. (2000). Fatality reduction by safety belts for front-seat occupants of cars and
light trucks: updated and expanded estimates based on 1986-99 FARS data. US
Department of Transportation, National Highway Trafc Safety Administration.
Li, K., Simons-Morton, B. G., Vaca, F. E., & Hingson, R. (2014). Association between
riding with an impaired driver and driving while impaired. Pediatrics, 133(4),
620–626. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2786
Litt, D. M., Lewis, M. A., Linkenbach, J. W., Lande, G., & Neighbors, C. (2014). Normative
misperceptions of peer seat belt use among high school students and their
relationship to personal seat belt use. Trafc Injury Prevention, 15(7), 748–752.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.868892
McCartt, A. T., Kidd, D. G., & Teoh, E. R. (2014). Driver cellphone and texting bans in the
United States: Evidence of effectiveness. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine,
58, 99–114.
McGehee, D. V., Raby, M., Carney, C., Lee, J. D., & Reyes, M. L. (2007). Extending
parental mentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen drivers.
Journal of Safety Research, 38(2), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsr.2007.02.009
Namoos, A., Thomson, N., Bradley, S., Van Harris, J., & Aboutanos, M. (2024). Alcohol
perceptions and driving decisions among adolescents: Exploring the role of peer and
parental inuences in Virginia. Trafc Injury Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389588.2024.2417343
National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2021). Distracted Driving htt
ps://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813111.
National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2022). Drunk Driving.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2023). Trafc Saftey Facts:
Young Drivers. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
813492.
National Highway Trafc Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2024). Early estimates of
motor vehicle trafc fatalities and fatality rate by sub-categories in 2023. 813, 581. htt
ps://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813581.
Poulin, C., Boudreau, B., & Asbridge, M. (2007). Adolescent passengers of drunk drivers:
A multi-level exploration into the inequities of risk and safety. Addiction, 102(1),
51–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01654.x
Stattin, H., Kerr, M., Tilton-Weaver, L., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Jaccard, J., & Dittus, P.
(2010). Parental monitoring of adolescents: Current perspectives for researchers and
practitioners. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Stavrinos, D., McManus, B., & Beck, H. (2020). Demographic, driving experience, and
psychosocial predictors of adolescent distracted driving beliefs. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 144, Article 105678.
Vaca, F. E., Li, K., Tewahade, S., Fell, J. C., Haynie, D. L., Simons-Morton, B. G., &
Romano, E. (2021). Factors contributing to delay in driving licensure among U.S.
high school students and young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(1), 191–198.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.003
White, A. M. (2020). Gender differences in the epidemiology of alcohol use and related
harms in the United States. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 40(2).
Williams, A. F., Leaf, W. A., Simons-Morton, B. G., & Hartos, J. L. (2006). Parents’ views
of teen driving risks, the role of parents, and how they plan to manage the risks.
Journal of Safety Research, 37(3), 221–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsr.2006.04.002
World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Global status report on road safety. https
://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/safety-and-mobility/globa
l-status-report-on-road-safety-2023.
Yellman, M. A. (2020). Transportation risk behaviors among high school
students—Youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR supplements, 69.
Amir Ghanbari is a third-year PhD student in the Department of Epidemiology at the
University of Iowa, focusing on injury prevention and transportation safety. His research
explores the risks faced by adolescents, teens, and other vulnerable road users, aiming to
better understand the factors that contribute to transportation-related injuries. Amir’s
research aims to reduce crashes and improve safety by developing targeted interventions
that promote safer environments for these at-risk groups.
Matison Howard is a fourth year PhD student in the department of Occupational and
Environmental Health on the Agricultural Safety and Health track at the University of
Iowa. Matison’s research focuses on emergency preparedness among agricultural opera-
tions, including natural disasters, man-made disasters, and infectious diseases. Her qual-
itative work provides a foundation for new research that can be done to advance on a topic
that is underdeveloped.
Joseph Cavanaugh is Professor and Head of the Department of Biostatistics at the Uni-
versity of Iowa. He holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Statistics and
Actuarial Science and is an afliate professor in the Applied Mathematical and Compu-
tational Sciences interdisciplinary doctoral program.
Cara Hamann is an Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Core Director of Training and
Education for the Injury Prevention Research Center, and Director of the Transportation
Research and Injury Prevention Safety (TRIPS) Lab at the University of Iowa
A. Ghanbari et al.
Journal of Safety Research 93 (2025) 342–347
347
