Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.

185194, 2000
Copyright 2000 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
00224375/00/$see front matter

Pergamon

PII S0022-4375(00)00035-9

The Development of Risky Driving in Adolescence

Niki Harr, Theo Brandt, and Martin Dawe

The driving attitudes and self-reported behaviors of New Zealand adolescents in Year 10 of school (n 168, mean age 14.2 years) were compared with
students in Year 12 (n 109, mean age 16.4 years). School year group differences were found for three out of the eight measures of risky attitudes and behaviors, with the older students having riskier responses in each case. Gender
differences were found for four of these measures, with males consistently
demonstrating riskier attitudes. Suggestions are made about appropriate interventions and the timing of these. 2000 National Safety Council and Elsevier
Science Ltd
Keywords: Risky driving, adolescence, risk behavior, age differences, gender
differences

INTRODUCTION
Adolescents are at high risk of road injury throughout the Western world (Evans, 1991). A large
body of research has suggested that a major reason for this is the tendency of this age group to
engage in a variety of unsafe driving behaviors
(e.g., Evans & Wasielewski, 1983; Jonah, 1986,
1990; Cooper, 1987). Risky driving appears to be
part of a larger cluster of unsafe behavior that occurs in this age group (Elliot, 1987; Jessor, 1987;
Swisher, 1988; Donovan, 1993), and is likely to
serve a number of developmental functions.
These may include identity formation (Papadakis
Niki Harr is a lecturer in psychology at the University of
Auckland. Her primary research interests are in child and adolescent injury prevention and program evaluation.
Theo Brandt is currently completing an Honours degree at
the University of Auckland.
Martin Dawe has a Masters degree from the University of
Auckland, and is a registered physiotherapist. He has extensive experience in program development and evaluation in a
broad range of health areas.

Winter 2000/Volume 31/Number 4

& Moore, 1991), peer group integration (Jessor,

1987; Arnett, 1992), and the desire to achieve
adult status (Moffit, 1993).
The public health implications of risky adolescent driving mean that it is important to consider developing interventions specifically for this
age group. Many of the approaches that have
been tried in New Zealand and elsewhere have
been limited to those who are already driving, including: school-based education (Harr & Field,
1998); media campaigns (Donovan, Jalleh, &
Henley, 1999); restrictions on the conditions under which young people can drive such as those
imposed by graduated licenses (Langley, Wagenaar, & Begg, 1996); and safe driving contracts between teenagers and their parents (Blaylock, 1992). Yet it is likely much younger
adolescents are developing a strong interest in
driving and formulating attitudes about appropriate driving behavior (Best & Edwards, 1982;
Page, 1992). With current research suggesting
that health-promotion efforts are best aimed
when adolescents are ready to receive the mes185

sage but prior to problematic habits being established (see Maggs, Schulenberg, & Hurrelman,
1997), it is highly desirable to gather further information about how attitudes toward driving develop during the teenage years.
There has been a reasonably large body of research suggesting that novice drivers (aged 16
18 years) do not engage in as much risk behavior
as slightly older drivers (aged 1824 years; Cooper, 1987; Jonah, 1990). One longitudinal study
of drivers aged 14 years at the start of the study
(possible because it took place in Iowa where it
was legal to drive at age 14 on rural roads) found
a 27% increase in those that reported engaging in
reckless driving over a 3-year period (Gerrard,
Gibbons, Benthin, & Hessling, 1996). The traffic
safety attitudes and behavior of younger predriving adolescents, and how these compare with
those who are legally able to drive has, however,
received little direct attention. Not only is this
important because predrivers are already in the
process of learning about driving through the observation of others (Best & Edwards, 1982; Page,
1992), but they are also making safety decisions
as passengers, such as whether to wear a seat belt
or travel with a driver who has been drinking.
In addition to age differences in adolescent
driving attitudes being a key issue in need of further research, gender differences are also of considerable interest. Studies of adolescent drivers
have consistently found that young men have a
greater tendency to engage in unsafe behaviors
than young women (Evans & Wasielewski,
1983; Wasielewski, 1984; Elliot, 1987; Forsyth,
1992; Harr, Field, & Kirkwood, 1996). Males
have also been found to rate risky driving behaviors or scenarios as involving less danger than females (Brown & Copeman, 1975; Trnkle, Gelau, & Metker, 1990; DeJoy, 1992; Mundt, Ross,
& Harrington, 1992). However, recent research
has suggested that young womens rates of risky
traffic-related behavior may be catching up to
those of men (Popkin, 1991; Moore, 1994;
Finken, Jacobs, & Laguna, 1998; Shapiro, Siegel, Scovill, & Hayes, 1998). Changing gender
roles means assumptions about the driving-related attitudes of young male and female drivers
and predrivers need to be regularly reexamined.
The aim of the present study was to examine
the passenger behavior and attitudes toward driving held by students in Year 10 of school (aged
approximately 14 years), and to compare these
with students in Year 12 (aged approximately 16
years). These school years were chosen as they
186

straddle the year in which most New Zealand

students reach 15 years of age and are legally
able to learn to drive. The study was also interested in gender differences, and the relationship
between age and gender. Of particular interest
was drunk driving and speeding, the two major
factors involved in fatal crashes in New Zealand
(Land Transport Safety Authority, 1998). Seatbelt wearing was also highlighted as rates of
back seat-belt wearing in particular are low in
some parts of New Zealand (Land Transport
Safety Authority, 1998), and this is a simple behavior that could save many young peoples lives
(Begg, Langley, & Chalmers, 1992).
Another objective of this study was to measure whether negative attitudes and self-reported
behaviors were correlated with driving experience, as it has been suggested that increased opportunity to participate in risky behavior leads to
underestimation of the risks involved (Irwin,
1993). Finally, the study aimed to make suggestions about appropriate interventions and when
these could take place.

METHOD
Participants and Sampling
A total of 277 students from two high schools situated in low-middle income areas of Auckland
participated in the study. One hundred and sixtyeight participants were in Year 10 of school
(mean age 14.2 years), and 109 were in Year 12
(mean age 16.4 years). There were slightly more
males in the Year 10 sample (54%) than in the
Year 12 sample (44%). Over the entire sample,
51% described themselves as of European descent, 15% were indigenous Maori, 15% were of
Pacific Island descent, 12% of Asian descent, and
8% of another ethnicity.
Procedure
All students in each participating class received
information sheets describing the research and
inviting them to take part, with the students in
Year 10 of school having an additional sheet posted
to their parents/guardians that included information about how to withdraw their child if they
wished. No parent withdrew their child. Two weeks
after the information sheets were issued, the questionnaire was delivered in class groups by two research assistants. All the students agreed to participate. Verbal instructions stressed the anonymity
Journal of Safety Research

of the questionnaire, as well as the lack of expectation for particular responses. As participants
handed in their questionnaires, they were asked
to check that they had answered all the questions.
This procedure meant that there were almost no
missing responses. The class teacher was left
with questionnaires for those students who were
absent on that day. This ensured that all potential
participants, apart from those with an extended
period of absence, took part.
Questionnaires
There were two questionnairesone for students
in school Year 10, and one for Year 12. Both
questionnaires asked about passenger behavior
and attitudes, driving attitudes, and knowledge of
driving risks; they also included a descriptive
scenario of a reckless driving event, to which a
written response was required. The Year 12 questionnaire had additional questions for drivers and
restricted license holders. Many of the items were
taken from a questionnaire used previously in the
evaluation study of a Year 12 driver education
program (Harr & Field, 1998).
Measuring behavior through self-report is not
ideal (see, e.g., Popham & Schmidt, 1981); however, it is the most practical way of obtaining a behavior measure (Mann, Vingilis, Leigh, Anglin, &
Blefgen, 1986). There is some evidence that
school students are fairly accurate when reporting
their behaviors (Killen & Robinson, 1988; Single,
Kandel, & Johnson, 1975). Jonah and Dawson
(1987) suggested that although it may be that people underreport negative behavior and overreport
positive behavior, self-report is, nevertheless, a
reasonable tool for making comparisons between
groups or between behaviors, the aim of the current study. Similarly, while measured attitudes
(also of interest in the current study) do not always
correlate strongly with measured behaviors (Eagly
& Chaiken, 1998), they are useful in obtaining an
understanding of adolescent predrivers who have
not had the opportunity to engage in some of the
behaviors of interest. Where possible, behavioral
intention was measured, a stronger attitude measure than opinion toward the behavior (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1998).
Drinking and Driving Attitudes and
Passenger Behavior
Attitudes to drinking and driving were measured
by a multiple-choice question with four responses,
Winter 2000/Volume 31/Number 4

ranging from you should never drink any alcohol when you are driving to its OK to sometimes drive over the limit as long as you drive
carefully. Subjects were then asked if in the last
3 months they had been the passenger of someone who has had a few drinks. They were required to respond by circling who had driven
them: mother, father, older sibling, other relative,
friend, friends parent, boyfriend/girlfriend, other.
They were able to choose as many of these options as they wished. There was also an option
for never having been the passenger of a drinking
driver. A further question measured the frequency
of being such a passenger in the last 3 months,
with four possible responses ranging from
never to many times. Participants expectation of being a passenger of someone who has
had a few drinks in the next 3 months was measured using five response options ranging from
definitely will to definitely wont with unsure in the middle.
Seat-Belt Wearing
Seat-belt wearing was measured by two questions asking participants how often they wore a
seat belt when traveling in the front, and how often they wore one when traveling in the back.
These questions had four response options ranging from always to never.
Attitudes Toward Risky Driving
Attitudes toward speed were measured by two
questions that asked what was the safest speed a
driver could go in good conditions in 50 km/h
and 100 km/h zones (these are the standard speed
limits in New Zealand for urban roads and highways, respectively). The scale for the 50-km zone
started at 50 km and went up in increments of
10 to faster than 80 km. For the 100-km zone
the options also went up in 10-km increments
from 90 km to faster than 120 km.
An adaptation of the unsafe driving scale,
used in the previous evaluation study, and orginally adapted from a study by Forsyth (1992), was
used to measure the perceived acceptability of
nine reckless or illegal driving behaviors. The
behaviors were: tailgating, risky passing, ignoring the speed limit, running red lights, going
through amber lights, chasing other drivers,
drinking and driving, racing other drivers, and
failing to stop for a pedestrian at a crossing. Subjects were required to rate each behavior on a
187

six-point scale ranging from never OK to always OK. The Cronbach coefficent alpha obtained for the scale in the present study was 0.74.
Subjects mean responses to the items on the
scale were used for the purposes of analysis.
Subjects understanding of the potential consequences of reckless driving were measured by
presenting them with the following scenario:
Jamie is 17 years old and has had his restricted
license for 6 months. He borrows his Mums
[Mothers] car to go to a party. He has a few
beers at the party and when he is driving home,
he and his mates [friends] think it would be fun
to run a few red lights. What are the possible
consequences of them doing this? Please write as
many things as you can think of.
Six lines were left for the subjects to write
their responses, which were coded by counting
the number of distinct consequences mentioned.
Three researchers were involved in this process,
each initially coding one-third of the responses.
One-third of the scenarios were then coded a second time. Interrater reliability was 0.83. Agreement was reached on all responses where a discrepancy was found.

Risky Driving Behavior: Year 12 Drivers Only

Year 12 drivers were asked to complete a second
version of the unsafe driving scale (in addition to
the first version), which featured the same behaviors used on the first version but asked them instead how often do you do these things? The
six-point response scale ranged from never to
always. A Cronbach coefficent alpha of 0.79
was obtained for this scale. Drivers were also
asked two additional questions about their drinking and driving behavior. The first asked them
how many times they had driven after a few
drinks in the last 3 months. They were asked to
choose from four responses ranging from never
to many times. The second question asked if
they thought they would drive after a few drinks
in the next 3 months, with five possible responses
ranging from definitely will to definitely wont
with unsure in the middle.
Drivers on a restricted license were also required
to respond to a three-item four-point scale measuring how often they broke the safety rules associated
with this license. These are: no alcohol before driving, no passengers (other than full-license holders),
and no driving after 10 p.m. The scale ranged
from never through to nearly all the time.
188

Knowledge About Driving Risks

The knowledge section included four multiple
choice questions on crash statistics: the number
of peopled killed on New Zealand roads each
year, the age group of people most likely to be
killed on New Zealand roads, where most fatal
crashes occur (50- or 100-km zones), and where
most injury crashes occur (50- or 100-km zones).
There was one question about the danger of
speeding that asked how much more damage a
100-km crash does than a 50-km crash. There
were also three true/false items related to drinking and driving: fresh air will sober you up, a cup
of coffee will sober you up, sucking a peppermint will beat a breath test.
Driving Experience
To measure driving experience, the Year 10 subjects (the majority of whom were under the legal
age for obtaining a learners license) were asked
if they had driven a car or motorbike, with five
response categories: (a) no; (b) yes, but just
on private property; (c) yes, I am learning to
drive on the road; (d) yes, I have driven on the
road a few times; and (e) yes, I have driven on
the road lots of times. Year 12 subjects answered
four questions. The first was an item with six response categories measuring the amount of driving
they had done over the last 3 months: (a) none;
(b) only when someone is teaching me; (c)
less than once a week; (d) only a little per
week; (e) at least three or four times a week;
and (f) most days. A second item asked about
whether they owned a vehicle or borrowed one
from a family member or other person. The final
two items asked if they had a license and what
type of license.
The questionnaire concluded with requesting
demographic information including gender, age,
and ethnicity.

RESULTS
Driving Experience
Only 21% of participants in Year 10 of school reported experience driving on public roads. Of
the Year 12 participants, 45% indicated they were
nondrivers or learners, with 21% driving occasionally and 34% driving at least three or four
times a week. Of those in Year 12 who reported
driving occasionally, 70% were licensed, with
Journal of Safety Research

89% of those who drove at least three or four

times a week reporting that they were licensed.
Under the New Zealand graduated licensing system there are two stages that must be passed
through prior to obtaining a full license: learner
and restricted. Only 2% of the Year 12 drivers
had a full drivers license, with 27% having a restricted license and 32% having a learner license.
Overview of Responses to Key Areas of
Concern: Drunk Driving, Speed, and Seatbelts
Overall, 83% of the sample indicated that you
should never drink and drive, or that you should
only have one or two drinks. Despite this, 46% of
participants reported having been the passenger
of a drinking driver in the past 3 months. Only
22% of participants felt they definitely would not
be the passenger of a drinking driver in the next 3
months. Rates of drinking and driving among the
Year 12 drivers were low, with 85% saying they
had never driven after a few drinks in the past 3
months, and only 7% indicating they had done so
more than once. There appeared to be a gender
difference in intention to drink and drive, with
89% of females indicating they probably or definitely would not drive after drinking in the next 3
months, compared with 53% of males.
Table 1 shows the drinking drivers with
whom the participants had traveled. It is notable
that 43% of males in Year 12 of school reported
being driven by a friend, compared with only
20% of Year 12 females and 10% of Year 10 students. Year 10 students were most commonly
driven home after their father had been drinking.
With regard to speeding, 49% of Year 12
males thought it safe to travel at 120 km an hour

or more in a 100-km zone under good conditions.

Among all other subjects, 25% also responded in
this way. Of the Year 12 males, 37% thought that
70 km or more was acceptable in a 50-km zone
under good conditions, with 29% of all other
subjects indicating this.
Back seat-belt wearing rates were considerably lower than front seat-belt wearing rates,
with 39% reporting always wearing a belt in the
back and 74% of participants reporting always
wearing a belt in the front.
Gender and Year Group Differences in Risky
Attitudes and Passenger Behaviors
To more closely examine gender and year group
differences, a MANOVA was conducted using
the eight variables that measured risky attitudes
and passenger behaviors. Also included was the
number of responses that the participants generated for the question concerning the consequences
of an incident involving reckless driving and the
knowledge about driving risk scores. The mean
and SDs for the 10 items can be seen in Table 2.
The MANOVA indicated a significant year group
effect, F(10, 247) 3.605, p 0.001, and a significant gender effect, F(10, 247) 3.993, p
0.001. There was no significant gender/year group
interaction.
Univariate analyses were then carried out on
each item. These revealed several significant effects. Gender was found to be significant for 5 of
the 10 items: drink/drive attitude, F(1, 271)
6.172, p 0.01; intention to be the future passenger of a drinking driver, F(1, 271) 6.377,
p 0.01; speed considered safe in a 100-km
zone, F(1, 271) 9.795, p 0.01; the unsafe

Table 1. Drinking Drivers Students Reported Being Driven by in the Past 3 Months
Year 10

Mother
Father
Sibling
Relative
Friend
Friends parent
Boy/girlfriend
Other
Never passenger

Year 12

Male
(n 91)

Female
(n 77)

Total
(n 168)

Male
(n 49)

Female
(n 60)

Total
(n 109)

%
7
22
7
10
9
3
0
5
56

%
6
16
5
8
12
3
4
5
61

%
7
19
6
9
10
3
2
5
58

%
4
18
14
6
43
0
2
4
41

%
7
15
7
8
20
5
8
7
53

%
6
17
10
7
30
3
6
6
48

Winter 2000/Volume 31/Number 4

189

Table 2. School Year Group and Gender Differences in Risky Attitudes and Passenger Behaviors
Year 10
Male

Female

Year 12
Total

Male

Female

Overall Gender
Total

Male

Female

n 91 n 77 n 168 n 49 n 60 n 109 n 140 n 137

Attitude toward
drunk drivinga
Past passenger of a
drinking driverb
Intention to be Pass.
of drunk driver c
Front seat belt
wearingd
Back seat belt
wearingd
Fastest speed
50 km zonee
Fastest speed
100 km zonef
Unsafe driving
behaviors scaleg
Consequencesh
Knowledge
Scorei

Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD

1.69
0.78
1.64
0.80
3.45
1.13
1.38
0.68
1.89
0.68
1.92
0.95
2.90
1.05
1.96
0.55
2.56
1.05
4.30
1.67

1.61
0.75
1.68
0.88
3.64
1.12
1.32
0.64
1.91
0.98
2.23
0.84
2.81
1.04
1.96
0.64
2.85
1.20
4.21
1.46

1.65
0.77
1.65
0.83
3.54
1.13
1.36
0.66
1.90
0.96
2.07
0.91
2.86
1.05
1.96
0.59
2.70
1.13
4.26
1.57

2.00
0.90
1.96
0.95
3.06
1.08
1.35
0.52
2.31
1.00
2.37
0.91
3.43
1.02
2.23
0.62
2.70
1.17
4.84
1.49

1.58
0.83
1.78
0.90
3.53
1.11
1.22
0.49
1.97
0.94
2.17
0.83
2.80
0.92
1.91
0.57
3.67
1.68
4.73
1.41

1.77
0.88
1.86
0.93
3.32
1.12
1.28
0.51
2.12
0.98
2.26
0.86
3.08
1.01
2.05
0.61
3.23
1.55
4.78
1.44

1.80
0.84
1.75
0.86
3.32
1.12
1.37
0.63
2.04
0.99
2.08
0.95
3.09
1.07
2.06
0.58
2.61
1.09
4.49
1.62

1.60
0.78
1.72
0.89
3.59
1.12
1.28
0.58
1.93
0.96
2.20
0.83
2.80
0.98
1.94
0.61
3.20
1.48
4.44
1.46

aScale:

1 to 4. The lower the score, the fewer drinks believed acceptable before driving.
1 to 4. The lower the score, the less the frequency.
cScale: 1 to 5. The lower the score, the greater the intention.
dScale: 1 to 4. The lower the score, the greater the frequency.
eScale: 1 50 km to 4 80km.
fScale: 1 90 km to 4 120km.
gScale: 1 to 6. The lower the score, the less the approval of unsafe driving.
hThe higher the score, the more consequences named.
iScale: 0 to 8. The higher the score, the greater the knowledge.
bScale:

driving scale, F(1, 271) 4.888, p 0.05; and

the number of consequences generated in response to the reckless driving scenario, F(1, 271)
15.286, p 0.001. In each of the first four items,
males reported more risky attitudes than females.
Females, however, were able to generate significantly more consequences from the reckless
driving scenario.
School year group differences were found for
five of the items: experience of being the passenger of a drinking driver, F(1, 271) 3.893, p
0.05; back seat-belt wearing, F(1, 271) 3.775,
p 0.05; speed considered safe in a 100-km
zone, F(1, 271) 5.400, p 0.05; knowledge,
F(1, 271) 7.957, p 0.01; and the number of
consequences generated from the reckless driving scenario, F(1, 271) 8.614, p 0.01. In the
case of the three items measuring risky attitudes
and passenger behaviors, the older year group
showed riskier responses than the younger group.
190

As would be expected, the older group had better

knowledge about driving risks and were able to
generate more consequences to the reckless driving scenario. Despite there being no significant
year group/gender interaction revealed by the
MANOVA, four of the individual items showed
significant interactions. In the case of safe speed
in a 100-km zone, F(1, 271) 5.594, p 0.05;
safe speed in a 50-km zone, F(1, 271) 6.209,
p 0.01; and the unsafe driving behaviors scale,
F(1, 271) 4.678, p 0.05, Year 12 males had
the most risky attitudes. However, Year 12 females were able to generate the most consequences from the risky driving scenario, F(1,
271) 4.382, p 0.05.
Gender Differences in Driver-Only Items
A MANOVA on the three items on the Year 12
questionnaire that were for all drivers revealed a
Journal of Safety Research

significant gender effect, F(3, 75) 6.050, p

0.001. Subsequent ANOVAs found that this effect was related to self-reported behavior on the
unsafe driving behavior scale, F(1, 77) 10.320,
p 0.01 and intention to drink and drive in the
future, F(1, 77) 13.455, p 0.001. In each
case, males displayed riskier attitudes than females. A MANOVA on the items relevant to drivers on restricted licenses showed no significant
gender effect overall, although the item related to
breaking the alcohol restriction was significant
when univariate analyses were conducted, F(1,
27) 4.304, p 0.05, with males indicating that
they broke this restriction more frequently. Tables 3 and 4 show the means and SDs for these
items.
Relationship Between Driving Experience and
the Items Measuring Risky Attitudes
To examine if there was a relationship between
the amount of driving carried out and risky driving attitudes, the Year 12 students were divided
into three categories: those who were nondrivers
or learners (45% of the sample); those who reported driving occasionally (21%); and those who
drove three or more times a week (34%). The
Year 10 sample was divided into two categories
for the purposes of this analysis: those with no
on-the-road driving experience (79%), and those
who had driven on the road at least a few times
(21%). Separate MANOVAs for each school year
group were then performed using these categories based on the four items relating to risky attitudes: attitude toward drinking and driving, safe
speed in 50-km zone and 100-km zone, and the
general version of the unsafe driving scale. Neither MANOVA revealed significant differences,

Table 3. Year 12 Drivers: Risky Driving Behavior

Male Female Total
n 40 n 39 n 79
Unsafe driving
behaviors scalea
Past drinking and
drivingb
Intention to drink
and drivec

Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD

2.25
0.65
1.33
0.73
3.72
1.22

aScale:

1.81
0.53
1.15
0.49
4.56
0.75

2.03
0.63
1.24
0.62
4.14
1.09

1 to 6. The lower the score, the lesser the amount of

unsafe driving.
bScale: 1 to 4. The lower the score, the less the frequency.
cScale: 1 to 5. The lower the score, the greater the intention.

Winter 2000/Volume 31/Number 4

Table 4. Restricted Licence Holders: Frequency of

Breaking the Rules of a Restricted Licence

Alcohol
restrictiona
Passenger
restrictiona
Night driving
restrictiona
aScale:

Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD

Male
n 18

Female
n 11

Total
n 29

1.44
0.51
2.67
0.91
2.44
0.86

1.09
0.30
2.73
1.01
1.91
0.94

1.31
0.47
2.69
0.93
2.24
0.91

1 to 4. The lower the score, the less the frequency

indicating that there did not appear to be a relationship between driving experience and risky driving attitudes.

DISCUSSION
Previous research has found that drivers in their
middle teenage years may display less reckless
behavior than drivers who are slightly older (Cooper, 1987; Jonah, 1990). The current study suggests that a similar trend may exist earlier in adolescence, with those aged 1415 years displaying
less risky attitudes toward driving than those aged
1617 years. The findings also indicated a number of significant gender differences, with some
evidence that male attitudes may deteriorate more
over this time period than female attitudes, particularly with regard to traveling with a drinking
friend, speeding, and reckless driving.
Despite the finding that significant increases
in traveling with a drinking driver are likely in
these middle high-school years, the majority of
even the most at-risk group, Year 12 males, indicated that no drinks or only one or two drinks
were acceptable before driving. Discrepancies
between attitude and behavior are common when
the attitude measured exists on a more general
level than the specific behavior of interest (Eagly
& Chaiken, 1998). In this case, participants may
have felt that it was inappropriate for the driver
to have been drinking, but considered they had
very limited influence over either the drivers
drinking or whether they travel with the driver. A
sense that one has the means and opportunity to
carry out a behavior is widely recognized as important in contributing to whether a protective
behavior occurs (Bandura, 1977; Ajzen, 1985).
Given that both the current study and previous
studies suggest that children are often regularly
191

driven by their parents (particularly their fathers)

after the parent has been drinking (DiBlasio,
1986; Stoddart, 1987), it is not surprising that adolescents have learned to be tolerant of drinking
drivers. It is of interest that the rate of reported
drunk driving among Year 12 drivers themselves
was very low, possibly reflecting that they perceived greater control in this situation.
Given the importance of means and opportunity discussed above, changes in the social context in which young people travel are vital. Positive changes may include the promotion of
parentchild contracts, such as that designed by
Students Against Drunk Driving in which a parent
agrees to pick up a teenager or pay for a taxi with
no questions asked at the time (Blaylock, 1992).
The provision of inexpensive taxi or shuttle services may also be desirable. To give students the
motivation and social skills to take up these alternatives and generate their own solutions to traveling with a drinking driver, skill-based school education programs (which are more likely to be
more effective than those based on knowledge;
see Flora & Thoresen, 1989; Hansen, 1992) are
important. The current study strongly suggests
that education aimed at avoiding traveling with a
drinking driver should take place in the junior
high-school years before the behavior reaches the
levels found in older students.
Two areas in which students of both age
groups and genders had problematic attitudes
and/or self-reported behaviors were speeding and
back seat-belt wearing. Clearly, there is a need for
greater enforcement of the relevant traffic laws,
as back seat-belt wearing is compulsory in New
Zealand, and there are speed limits on all roads.
Similarly, mass media campaigns (see Donovan
et al., 1999, for a description of recent Australian
and New Zealand campaigns) have their place.
Targeted school-based education is certainly
worthwhile with regard to seatbelts, as even very
young children can be taught responsibility for
buckling up (Hazinski, Eddy, & Morris, 1995).
If the dangers of speeding are to be included in
school programs, this needs to take place in the
predriving phase, prior to the even greater deterioration in attitudes over the high school years
shown in the current study.
The reason for a drift toward riskier driving attitudes and passenger behaviors across the middle
school years was not directly examined in this
study. Previous research on other types of risk behavior in adolescence has found a similar trend
(see Moffit, 1993). One suggestion for this trend
192

is that the perceived benefits of various behavior

come to outweigh the risks associated with the
behavior (Lehto, James, & Foley, 1994; Smith &
Rosenthal, 1995). If this is the case, then the risks
(of either a crash or a traffic conviction) need to
become more salient for this age group, and the
benefits (such as convenience, identity formation,
and peer group integration) need to become less
so. This balance can be shifted either directly
through changes in the driving context or indirectly through changes in perception.
The current study did, however, examine the
relationship between attitudes toward driving
and driving involvement, and found no evidence
of a connection between the two. This suggests
that higher levels of driving involvement, and
hence more opportunity to speed and engage in
other risky behavior, probably does not explain
the year group and gender differences in attitudes
toward risky driving that were found in the current study. It may be that by senior high school
many young people are experiencing (and enjoying) reckless driving as passengers, and that this
is enough to influence their attitudes. It is also
possible that senior high-school students, particularly males, are part of a peer-group culture in
which risky driving is seen as worthy of admiration (see Papadakis & Moore, 1991), and that
they are more influenced by this than their own
direct experience.
This study was limited by its reliance on a
prevalence survey (see Schwarz, Groves, &
Schuman, 1998) involving relatively small numbers taken from only two schools. Although every attempt was made to reduce error by choosing schools that were demographically similar to
the wider adolescent population, following up on
absentees, and ensuring that participants answered all questions, it is possible that a larger
sample may have produced somewhat different
findings. Also, as discussed previously, the use
of indirect measures such as self-reported behaviors, behavioral intentions, and attitudes mean
that there will almost certainly be some degree of
social desirability bias that needs to be taken into
account when assessing the results. Further studies could investigate the use of methods involving direct behavioral observation. Nevertheless,
this study draws attention to the probability of
considerable shifts in traffic safety-related attitudes, especially for males, over the high-school
years. Although interventions aimed at the general population and at new drivers are clearly essential, these results also suggest the need to tarJournal of Safety Research

get predrivers before potentially lethal behaviors

become habitual.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of
planned behaviour. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behaviour (pp. 1139).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behaviour in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339373.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Begg, D.J., Langley, J.D., & Chalmers, D. (1992). Motor vehicle road crashes during the fourteenth and fifteenth year
of life. New Zealand Medical Journal, 105, 150151.
Best, J., & Edwards, D.R. (1982). Driver education investigation project, 19791980, vol. 1. Wellington: Ministry
of Transport, & Hamilton: Department of Education.
Blaylock, O. (1992). The practical and operating perspective of SADD (pp. 301310). Seminar papers of the National Road Safety Seminar, vol. 2. Wellington: Road
Traffic Safety Research Council.
Brown, I.D., & Copeman, A.K. (1975). Drivers attitudes to
the seriousness of road traffic offences considered in relation to the design of sanctions. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 7, 1526.
Cooper, P. (1987). Young drivers as represented in the accident data. In J.P. Rothe (Ed.), Rethinking young drivers
(pp. 253280). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
DeJoy, D.M. (1992). An examination of gender differences
in traffic accident risk perception. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 24(3), 237246.
DiBlasio, F.A. (1986). Drinking adolescents on the roads.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(2), 173188.
Donovan, J.E. (1993). Young adult drinking-driving: Behavioural and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 54(5), 600613.
Donovan, R.J., Jalleh, G., & Henley, N. (1999). Executing effective road safety advertising: Are big production budgets
necessary? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 243252.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and
function. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, vol 1, 4th ed.
(pp. 26922). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Elliot, D. (1987). Self-reported driving while under the influence of alcohol/drugs and the risk of alcohol/drug-related
accidents. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 3(34), 3143.
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York:
van Nostrand Reinhold.
Evans, L., & Wasielewski, P. (1983). Risky driving related
to driver and vehicle characteristics. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 15(2), 121136.
Finken, L.L., Jacobs, J.E., & Laguna, K. (1998). Risky
drinking and driving decisions: The role of previous experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 493511.
Flora, J.A., & Thoresen, C.E. (1989). Reducing AIDS risk
in adolescents. In V.M. Mays, G.W. Albee, & S.F.
Schneider (Eds.), Primary prevention of AIDS (pp. 374
389). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Forsyth, E. (1992). Cohort study of learner and novice drivers, Part 2: Attitudes, opinions and the development of

Winter 2000/Volume 31/Number 4

driving skills in the first 2 years (TRL Report No:

RR372). Crowthorne, UK: Department of Transport.
Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F.X., Benthin, A.C., & Hessling,
R.M. (1996). A longitudinal study of the reciprocal nature of risky behaviors and cognitions in adolescent:
What you do shapes what you think and vice versa.
Health Psychology, 15, 344354.
Hansen, W.B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: A review of the state of the art in curriculum,
19801990. Health Education Research, 7(3), 403430.
Harr, N., & Field J. (1998). Safe driving education programmes in schools: Lessons from a New Zealand study.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,
22, 44750.
Harr, N., Field, J., & Kirkwood, B. (1996). Gender differences and areas of common concern in the driving behaviours and attitudes of adolescents. Journal of Safety Research, 27(3), 163173.
Hazinski, M.F., Eddy, V.A., & Morris, J.A. (1995) Childrens traffic safety programme: Influence of early elementary school safety education on family seat belt use.
Journal of Trauma, 39, 10631068.
Irwin, C.E. (1993). Adolescence and risk taking: how are
they related? In N.J. Bell & R.W. Bell (Eds.), Adolescent
risk taking (pp. 728). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jessor, R. (1987). Risky driving and adolescent problem behaviour: An extension of problem-behaviour theory. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 3(34), 111.
Jonah, B.A. (1986). Accident risk and risk-taking behaviour
among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
18(4), 255271.
Jonah, B.A. (1990). Age differences in risky driving. Health
Education Research, 5(2), 139149.
Jonah, B.A., & Dawson, N.E. (1987). Youth and risk: Age
differences in risky driving, risk perception and risk utility. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 3(34), 13- 29.
Killen, J.D., & Robinson, T.N. (1988). School-based research on health behaviour change: The Standford Adolescent Heart Health Programme as a model for cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Review of Research on
Education (198889), 15, 171196.
Land Transport Safety Authority. (1998). Motor Accidents
in New Zealand: Statistical Statement for 1997. Wellington: Land Transport Safety Authority.
Langley, J.D., Wagenaar, A.C., & Begg, D.J. (1996). An
evaluation of the New Zealand graduated driver licensing system. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28(2),
139146.
Lehto, M.R., James, D.S., & Foley, J.P. (1994). Exploratory
factor analysis of adolescent attitudes toward alcohol and
risk. Journal of Safety Research, 25(4), 197213.
Maggs, J.L., Schulenberg, J., & Hurrelman, K. (1997). Developmental transitions during adolescence: Health promotion implications. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K.
Hurrelman (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 522546). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mann, R.E., Vingilis, E.R., Leigh, G., Anglin, L., & Blefgen, H. (1986). School based programmes for the prevention of drinking and driving: Issues and results. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 18(4), 325337.
Moffit, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-coursepersistent antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674701.
Moore, R.H. (1994). Underage female DUI offenders: Personality characteristics, psychosocial stressors, alcohol

193

and other drug use, and driving risk. Psychological Reports, 74, 435445.
Mundt, J.C. Ross, L.E., & Harrington, H.L. (1992). A modeling analysis of young drivers judgments of accident
risk due to alcohol use and other driving conditions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53(3), 239248.
Page, D. (1992). Young drivers: Overview. In Seminar papers
of the National Road Safety Seminar, vol. 2 (pp. 231242).
Wellington: Road Traffic Safety Research Council.
Papadakis, E., & Moore, A. (1991). Drink-driving and adolescent lifestyles: Re-thinking policy. Australian Journal
of Social Issues, 25(2), 83106.
Popham, R.E., & Schmidt, W. (1981). Words and deeds:
The validity of self-report data on alcohol consumption.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 42(3), 355358.
Popkin, C.L. (1991). Drinking and driving by young females. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23(1), 3744.
Schwarz, N., Groves, R.M., & Schuman, H. (1998). Survey
methods. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, vol. 1, 4th ed.
(pp. 143179). New York: McGraw-Hill.

194

Shapiro, R. Siegel, A.W., Scovill, L.C., & Hays, J. (1998).

Risk-taking patterns of female adolescents: What they do
and why. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 143159.
Single, E., Kandel, D., & Johnson, B.D. (1975). The reliability and validity of drug use responses in a large scale
longitudinal survey. Journal of Drug Issues, 5, 426443.
Smith, A., & Rosenthal, D. (1995). Adolescents perceptions of their risk environment. Journal of Adolescence,
18, 229245.
Stoddart, K. (1987). Erfahrung of young drivers. In J.P.
Rothe (Ed.), Rethinking young drivers (pp. 131198).
New Brunswick: Transaction.
Swisher, J.D. (1988). Problem-behaviour theory and driving
risk. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 4(34), 205219.
Trnkle, U., Gelau, C., & Metker, T. (1990). Risk perception and age-specific accidents of young drivers. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 22(2), 119125.
Wasielewski, P. (1984). Speed as a measure of driver risk:
Observed speeds versus driver and vehicle characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 16(2), 89103.

Journal of Safety Research