This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 05 November 2014, At: 07:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Genetic Psychology:Research and Theory on HumanDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Fathers and Sons: TheirRelationship and PersonalityCharacteristics Associated with theSon's Smoking BehaviorJudith S. Brook a , Martin Whiteman a , Ann Scovell Gordon a

& David W. Brook aa Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University , USAPublished online: 04 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Judith S. Brook , Martin Whiteman , Ann Scovell Gordon & David W.Brook (1983) Fathers and Sons: Their Relationship and Personality Characteristics Associatedwith the Son's Smoking Behavior, The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory onHuman Development, 142:2, 271-281, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.1983.10533518

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1983.10533518

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1983, 144, 271-281.

FATHERS AND SONS: THEIR RELATIONSHIP AND PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE

SON’S SMOKING BEHAVIOR*’

M t . Sinai School of Medicine and Columbia University

JUDITH S. BROOK, MARTIN WHITEMAN, ANN SCOVELL GORDON, AND DAVID W. BROOK

SUMMARY The purpose of the present study was to examine the interrelationship of

the domains of father personality attributes, father socialization techniques, and adolescent personality attributes, and the son’s use of tobacco. A sample of 246 male adolescents and their fathers from intact homes was adminis- tered questionnaires. Two main findings emerged. First, each of the three domains was significantly associated with the son’s tobacco use despite control on the remaining domains. Second, the effectiveness of the father may interact synergistically with or be ’mitigated by the son’s personality attributes in its association with the son’s tobacco use. In concert, the findings support the importance of examining the father-son relationship for a greater understanding of the son’s tobacco use.

A. INTRODUCTION While there is a large body of evidence suggesting that maternal attributes

are associated with adolescent development, there are relatively few studies dealing with the paternal determinants of adolescent behavior. However, the significance of the father-son relationship is becoming increasingly evi- dent, particularly in its effect on the son’s intellectual and social develop- ment, psychological adjustment, his drug use, and deviance (2, 4, 17). The

* Recommended by Arthur T. Jersild of the Editorial Board, and received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on December 28, 1981. Copyright, 1983, by The Journal Press.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 02390-02). The authors wish to thank the following for their help: President Seymour Hyman and Dean Mildred Weil of the William Paterson College of New Jersey and Dr. Dan Lettieri.

Requests for reprints should be sent to the iirst author at the address shown at the end of this article.

2 7 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

272 JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

major goal of the present study is to examine in depth the paternal determi- nants of adolescent tobacco use by studying the interconnection of paternal personality attributes, paternal socialization techniques, and adolescent per- sonality attributes in association with adolescent tobacco use.

In a recent paper we provided a description of three possible models for depicting the interrelationship of domains of paternal personality attributes, paternal socialization techniques, and adolescent personality attributes (5 ) . According to an interdependent model, each of these domains is related to the son’s tobacco use without control on the remaining domains. However, each of the domains with control on the remaining domains is no longer related to the son’s tobacco use. Thus, certain variables from all of the domains must occur in order for tobacco use to appear. The mediational model, in contrast, postulates that one of the domains is prepotent to others, which relate to drug use only because of their association with the prepotent domain. For example, if the domains of paternal personality and socializa- tion techniques were no longer associated with the son’s tobacco use with control on adolescent personality characteristics, but the domain of adoles- cent personality characteristics was significant with control on the father domains, then the adolescent domain would be prepotent. In the indepen- dent model, each of the domains is associated with the adolescent’s tobacco use even with control on the remaining domains.

The selection of paternal personality attributes to include in the present study was complicated by the fact that there is no compelling theoretical rationale for choosing specific attributes because there is little research on the impact of the father’s personality on his son’s development. Also very little is known about which paternal personality characteristics are related specifically to adolescent smoking behavior. Consequently, the present study included paternal measures which have been found to be associated with psychologically adaptive behavior in adolescents. Previous research has shown that paternal adjustment, conventionality, masculinity, and ability to delay gratification are associated with aspects of the adolescent’s adaptive behavior; e.g., self-esteem, object relations, and emotional well-being (13).

Several influential theories-Kohlberg’s cognitive-developmental, Mis- chel’s social learning, and Freud’s psychodynamic-have stressed the im- portance of parental identification in the individual’s development. There is also considerable evidence that parental socialization techniques provide a crucial context for the development of the individual in a number of significant areas. Decades of research by Schaefer and others (18) have indicated that socialization techniques can be divided into two basic dimen-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

JUDITH s. BROOK et al. 273

sions-affection and control. Several measures to tap each of these crucial constructs (identification, affection, and control) were therefore included in the present study.

Finally, the inclusion of adolescent personality attributes is justified by the long-standing recognition of the difference in these characteristics between adolescent smokers and nonsmokers. In a study of lower-class male adoles- cents, Brook, Whiteman, and Gordon (3) found that smokers showed less ability to control their impulses, less evidence of responsibility, and more rebelliousness and interpersonal aggression than nonsmokers. Thus, the data seemed to support a pattern of hypermasculinity and bravado among male adolescent smokers. In general, the findings were consistent with those of Coan (6), Dicken and Bryson (9), Jacobs and Spilken (12), Smith (22, 23), and Williams (25).

B. METHOD 1. Subjects and Procedure

The sample consisted of 246 white, male college students and their fathers from intact homes. Only males whose fathers had not been absent from the home at any time during their life for more than two years were eligible to participate in the study. All of the students attended a large state college in New Jersey and recruitment was from all classes. The mean age of the student sample was 20; 39% never smoked, 44% smoked five or fewer cigarettes per day, and 17% smoked half a pack a day or more. Fifty percent of the fathers had professional or managerial occupations and the rest had skilled or semiskilled jobs; 76% of the fathers were high school graduates and 44% had had at least some college education.

Fathers and sons were administered questionnaires with closed-format items which took about one hour to complete. The questionnaires included items assessing the various personality and socialization factors, as well as drug use. In order to maintain confidentiality, the students and their fathers were instructed to omit putting any identifying information on the question- naires. Matching of father-son questionnaires was accomplished through the use of a system of identification numbers. Each father-son pair was paid $8.00 for participating in the study.

2 . Measures Final selection of the items within each father and son scale was based on

item intercorrelations and reliabilities. The analyses used in this study are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

2 74 JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

based on these scales which have been grouped into three domains, father personality attributes, father socialization techniques, and adolescent per- sonality attributes. The scales are, for the most part, adaptations of existing scales with adequate psychometric properties. The measures and their sources are as follows:

(a) Domain of father personality attributes. The scales are as follows: Attitude to Marijuana Use and Attitude to Tobacco Use (1.5); Ego Integra- tion (2); Impulsivity (10, l l); Depression, Interpersonal Difficulty, and Ob- sessiveness (8); Object Relations (1 1); and Masculinity (10). These scales were all based on paternal self-report. Reliabilities (Cronbach alphas) range from .32 to . 7 7 , with a median of .63.

(b) Domain of father socialization techniques. Four of the scales within this domain were adapted from Schaefer (18) and include Child- Centeredness, Communications, Affection, and Extreme Autonomy. The remaining scales are as follows: Encourages Son’s Ideas (20); Discipline and Support (1); Time Spent with Son, Expectations for the Son, and Paternal Identification.* The latter scale is based on the son’s assessment of his similarity to, and identification with, his father. All other scales in this domain are based on the father’s perception. Reliabilities range from .58 to .93, with a median of . 7 1.

(c) Domain of adolescent personality attributes. Included in this domain are Attitude to Deviance (14); Rebelliousness (24); Resists Control (19); Responsibility (10); Sensation Seeking (26); and Depression, Anxiety, and Obsessiveness (8). These scales were all based on adolescent self-report with the exception of Resists Control, which was assessed by the father. Re- liabilities range from .33 to .87, with a median of .61.

C. RESULTS

The paternal personality, paternal childrearing, and adolescent personal- ity attributes and their associations with adolescent smoking are presented in Table 1 . 3 Fathers whose sons smoked were more “traditionally” masculine in orientation, more impulsive, less well-adjusted, and more tolerant of tobacco and marijuana use. In contrast, fathers of nonsmokers were less “traditionally” masculine, better able to delay immediate for future grat-

* These scales were developed by the authors. Copies of the scales are available upon

Father’s smoking was not included in the tables, since it was not significant either as a main request.

effect or as an interaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

JUDITH s. BROOK et al. 275

TABLE 1 BISERIAL CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FATHER PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES, FATHER SOCIALIZATION TECHNIQUES, AND ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES AND

ADOLESCENT SMOKING ( N = 246)

Domain smoking Adolescent

A. Father personalityhehavioral attributes Attitude to marijuana (more tolerant of use) Attitude to tobacco (more tolerant of use) Depression (more) Ego integration (less) Impulsivity (more) Interpersonal difficulty (more) Masculinity (more) Object relations (weaker) Obsessiveness (more)

Affection (less) Child-centeredness (less) Communications (less) Discipline (more) Encourages son’s ideas (less) Expectations (lower) Extreme autonomy (less) Identification (less) Support (less) Time with son (less)

Anxiety (more) Attitude to deviance (more tolerant of deviance) Depression (more) Impulsivity (more) Obsessiveness (less) Rebelliousness (more) Resists control (more) Responsibility (less) Sensation seeking (more)

B. Father socialization techniques

C. Adolescent personality attributes

.14*

.14*

.06

.13*

.14*

.11*

.17**

.lo*

.03

.23***

.11*

.19**

.11*

.13*

.13*

.04

.23***

.20**

.25***

. 00

.15**

.02

.13*

.07

.26***

.20**

.18**

. 08

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

*** p < ,001.

ification, and intolerant of tobacco and marijuana use. With respect to so- cialization techniques, fathers whose sons smoked were less affectionate and supportive, spent less time with their sons, did not center their attention on their sons, used harsh techniques of discipline, and had low expectations for their sons. Meaningful interchange between father and son was less likely to occur among sons who smoked. Given this profile of paternal characteristics of smokers, it is not surprising that smokers were less likely to identify with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

276 JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

their fathers. Adolescent smokers, as compared with nonsmokers, were more rebellious, more likely to act on their impulses, less responsible, and more tolerant of deviance. In contrast, nonsmokers were more responsible, better able to delay gratification, more intolerant of deviance, and less rebellious.

Each domain (paternal personality attributes, paternal socialization tech- niques, and adolescent personality attributes) with and without control on the remaining domains was examined using the multiple regression formula presented by Cohen ( 7 , p. 435). The dependent variable for these analyses was tobacco use vetws nonuse. The results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis as related to the son’s tobacco use are presented in Table 2 . The specific variables which were entered into the regression analysis appear in Table 1. Interaction terms were also included in the regression analysis. (A description of these terms and the basis for inclusion are presented below.)

The results suggest that each of the domains with control on the remaining domains is significantly associated with adolescent tobacco use. In addition, the interaction set was significant with control on the main effects of the three domains. The results are consistent with an independent model. That is, each of the domains is associated with adolescent tobacco use despite control on the remaining domains.

TABLE 2 MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS (RS) BETWEEN THE DOMAINS OF FATHER PERSQNALITY

ATTRIBUTES, FATHER SOCIALIZATION TECHNIQUES, ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES, INTERACTIONS, AND ADOLESCENT SMOKING

Each domain Each domain without control with control on on the remain- the remaining

ing domains domains

Domain R F R F

A. Father personality attributes .28 2.27* .22 2.00* B. Father socialization techniques .35 3.37** .29 2.67** C. Adolescent personality .34 3.32** .25 2.33* D. Interactions - - .35 6.67**

Note: See Table 1 for a list of the variables contained within Domains A-C. Domain D consisted of the following six interaction terms: A X C Znteructions = Father’s Depression X Adolescent’s Sensation Seeking, Father’s Obsessiveness X Adolescent’s Attitude to Deviance; B X C Interactions = Identification with the Father x Adolescent’s Sensation Seeking, Father’s Extreme Autonomy X Adolescent’s Rebelliousness, Father’s Support X Adolescent’s Obsessiveness; A X B Znteruction = Father’s Impulsivity X Father’s Communications.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

JUDITH S. BROOK et d. 277

Since a major concern of this paper was a study of the interaction of variables between domains, those interaction terms are presented which contributed significantly (.005 or above) to the variance in the regression analysis with control on the three domains. These interaction variables were examined in two-way analyses of variance. With regard to the interaction of the father’s depression and the adolescent’s sensation seeking: for fathers who were not depressed, sons were more likely to smoke if they were sensation seekers than if they were not, F(1,233) = 4.79, p < .05; for fathers who were not obsessive, sons were more apt to smoke if the sons were tolerant rather than intolerant of deviance, F(1,236) = 5.61, p < .05; for adolescents who identified with their fathers, sensation-seekers were more likely to smoke than nonsensation-seekers, F(1,231) = 3.96, p < .05. Thus, the effect of a well integrated father, or one who serves as a good role model for his son, may be mitigated by his son’s lack of conventionality or sensa- tion-seeking orientation.

Adolescents who were rebellious and had permissive fathers were more likely to smoke than adolescents who were nonrebellious and had fathers who were permissive, F(1,232) = 4.99, p < .05. Adolescents who were obsessive and whose fathers were nonsupportive were more likely to smoke than obsessive adolescents whose fathers were supportive, F( 1,235) = 3.93, p < .05. Thus, there seems to be a synergistic interaction between adolescent nonconventionality or psychopathology and uninvolved father-son relation- ships resulting in a greater likelihood that the son will smoke. Finally, highly impulsive fathers who did not communicate with their sons were more likely to have sons who smoked than those who were impulsive but did communi- cate with them, F(1,236) = 4.72, p < .05.

D. DISCUSSION The results support an independent model; that is, the domains of father

personality attributes, father socialization techniques, and adolescent per- sonality attributes are each associated with adolescent tobacco use despite control on the remaining domain^.^ Both father domains and the adolescent personality domain seem to have independent lines of relationships and constitute their own sets of sufficient conditions for the adolescent’s tobacco use. Thus, adverse paternal personality attributes are operative even in the context of effective paternal socialization techniques and positive adolescent

It should be noted that the findings regarding the interrelations of the domains and their association with adolescent tobacco use are only correlational and cannot address the issues of causality or directionality.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

278 JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

personality attributes. Similarly, less effective paternal socialization tech- niques are associated with tobacco use despite benign paternal and adoles- cent personality characteristics. Finally, adverse adolescent personality at- tributes are associated with tobacco use despite optimal paternal conditions.

It should be pointed out that although the overall findings tend to support an independent model, a qualification of this model is appropriate. There may also be some factor variance among the domains. This interpretation is based on two findings: (a) There is a sizable decrease in the multiple R of each domain once there is control on the remaining domains, thus indicating that there is some mediation; and (b) the canonical correlations between the domains of father personality and father childrearing, father and adolescent personality, and father childrearing and adolescent personality are highly significant (.62, . 51 , and .60, respectively). If we were to speculate on the source of this common factor variance, the canonical analysis indicates that the variables involving less adequate interpersonal relatedness in the father personality domain and resistance to control in the adolescent domain con- tribute most strongly to the relation between these two domains. At the same time, father power-assertive techniques of discipline and the adolescent’s tendency to resist control contribute most strongly to the relationship be- tween the father childrearing and adolescent personality domains. In sum, while our data clearly support the separate effects of the three domains, there may be some interdomain effects as delineated by the specific variables cited above.

This study revealed important paternal personality determinants of their offsprings’ tobacco use. Fathers of smokers tended to be more impulsive, had more “stereotyped” masculine interests, were unconventional, and not well-adjusted (as reflected in scales measuring ego integration and interper- sonal relatedness).

The pattern of findings regarding paternal childrearing determinants of the son’s tobacco use suggests several conclusions. First, the nature of the affectional bond between the father and his son is of considerable impor- tance. Thus, fathers who are affectionate, emotionally supportive, involved, center their attention on their sons, and engage in meaningful conversations with them are more likely to have sons who do not smoke. These findings are consistent with the general developmental literature on paternal determi- nants of adaptive behavior. Second, fathers of nonsmokers have high expec- tations for their sons and encourage the development of their son’s ideas, thus perhaps satisfying the son’s needs for independence. One explanation, based on the learned helplessness theory of Seligman (2 I), is that fathers who

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

JUDITH s. BROOK et al. 279

use childrearing techniques that foster independence convey to their sons the feeling that the latter’s action has an effect on the environment and thus the son does not have to resort to compensatory behavior, such as smoking, in order to achieve a sense of control or competence. Third, fathers who exhibit negative behaviors, such as harsh criticizing or punishing, are more likely to have sons who smoke. One possible explanation for this is that in order for a son of a rejecting father to feel more adult-like, more masculine, and less vulnerable, he may resort to smoking as a means of coping with both external and internal stimuli.

A fourth finding regarding paternal childrearing is that adolescent males who identify with their fathers’ values, beliefs, and attitudes are less likely to smoke. Those sons who have not established a satisfactory identification with their fathers may instead identify with the stereotype of the “macho man” as portrayed in cigarette advertisements or as exhibited in extrafa- milial males. This identification may help the sons feel more manly, thus compensating for the lack of a strong, internalized father figure. Finally, not only is the quality of the father-son relationship (i.e., paternal respon- siveness to the son’s needs) of importance, but the quantity of time spent together is also of significance, as evidenced by the fact that fathers of nonsmokers spend much more time with their sons than fathers of smokers. To sum up the conclusions regarding paternal childrearing factors related to the son’s smoking, there appears to be a pattern of “optimal paternal care” (i.e., positive emotion, support, interaction, and responsiveness) that is associated with the son’s nonuse of tobacco.

Adolescent smokers differed from nonsmokers on a number of personality attributes. Smokers were more likely to exhibit tolerance of transgression, rebelliousness, lack of compliance in the family situation, less responsibility, and greater impulsivity. One might speculate that such a configuration of personality attributes in the adolescent may result in smoking as compensa- tory behavior for inadequate feelings of self-esteem. In general, these results are consistent with those of several other investigators (see 16 and 23 for reviews).

The present study provides further insights into the family interaction system, more specifically, how interaction in the father-son dyad relates to the adolescents’ smoking behavior. For example, the effectiveness of a well- integrated father (as measured by his lack of depressive or obsessive symp- toms) or of one who serves as a good role model for his son may be mitigated by negative aspects of the son’s personality (e.g., the son’s sensation-seeking orientation or nonconventionality). Paternal childrearing practices also in-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

2 80 JOURNAL O F GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY

teracted with the adolescent’s personality in their association with adolescent smoking behavior. A synergistic interaction between adolescent maladjust- ment and rebelliousness and the father’s lack of control and lack of positive affect also emerged. Thus, the two systems (father, son) become intertwined in a process that facilitates or hinders the development of tobacco use in the son.

1.

2 . 3.

4.

5 .

6.

7 .

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17

REFERENCES

AVGAR, A,, BRONFENBRENNER, U. , & HENDERSON, JR., C. R. Socialization practices of parents, teachers and peers in Israel: Kibbutz, Moshav, and city. Child Devel., 1977, 48, 1219-1227.

BILLER, H. B. Father, Child, and Sex Role. Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1971. BROOK, J. S., WHITEMAN, M., & GORDON, A. S. Maternal and personality determinants

. The role of the father in his son’s marijuana use. J . Genet. Psychol., 1981, 138,

BROOK, J. S., WHITEMAN, M., BROOK, D. W., & GORDON, A. S. Paternal determinants

COAN, R. W. Personality variables associated with cigarette smoking. J . Personal. 6 SOC.

COHEN, J. Multiple-regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychol. Bull., 1968,

DEROGATIS, L. R., LIPMAN, R. S., RICKELS, K., UHLENHUTH, E. H . , & COVI, L. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behav. S c i . , 1974, 19, 1-15.

DICKEN, C., & BRYSON, R. Psychology in action: The smoking of psychology. Amer.

GOUGH, H. G. The California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, Calif. : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1957.

JACKSON, D. N. Personality Research Form. Goshen, N.Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1974.

JACOBS, M. A,, & SPILKEN, A. 2. Personality patterns associated with heavy cigarette smoking in male college students. 1. Consult. 6. Clin. Psychol., 1971, 37(3), 428-432.

JERSILD, A. T., BROOK, J. S., & BROOK, D. W. The Psychology of Adolescence (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1978.

JESSOR, R., GRAVES, T. D., HANSON, R. C., & JESSOR, S. L. Society, Personality, and Deviant Behavior: A Study of a Tri-ethnic Community. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.

KANDEL, D. Study of high school students-Student Questionnaire, Wave 1, Fall, 1971. In A. Nehemkis, M. A. Macari, & D. J. Lettieri (Eds.), Drug Abuse Instrument Handbook. Research Issues 12. Rockville, Md.: Nat. Inst. on Drug Abuse, 1976.

KOZLOWSKI, L. Psychosocial influences on cigarette smoking. In N. A. Krasnegor (Ed.), The Behavioral Aspects of Smoking “IDA Research Monograph 26, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Publication No. (ADM)79-882]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979.

LAMB, M. E., E d . The Role of the Father in Child Development. New York: Wiley, 1976.

of adolescent smoking behavior. J. Genet. Psychol., 1981, 139, 185-193.

81-86.

of male adolescent marijuana use. Devel. Psychol., 1981, 17(6), 841-847.

Psychol., 1973, 26(1), 86-104.

70, 426-443.

P~ychol . , 1978, 33(5), 504-507.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

JUDITH s. BROOK et al. 281

18.

19.

SCHAEFER, E. S. Children’s report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Devel.,

SCHAEFER, E. S., & FINKELSTEIN, N. W. Child Behavior Toward Parents: An Inventory and Factor Analysis. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association An- nual Meeting, Chicago, August, 1975.

SCHAEFER, E. S., EDGERTON, M., & COMSTOCK, M. S. Parent Interview. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1976. Unpublished.

SELIGMAN, M. E. P. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Fran- cisco: Freeman, 1975.

SMITH, G. M. Relations between personality and smoking behavior in preadult subjects. J. Consult. 6 Clin. Psychol., 1969, 33(6), 710-715. - . Personality and smoking: A review of empirical literature. In W. A. Hunt (Ed.),

Learning Mechanisms in Smoking. Chicago: Aldine, 1970. SMITH, G. M., & FOGG, C. P. Psychological antecedents of teenage drug use. In R.

Simmons (Ed.), Research in Community and Mental Health: An Annual Compilation of Reseurch (Vol. I). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI, 1979.

25. WILLIAMS, A. F. Personality and other characteristics associated with cigarette smoking among young teenagers. J. Health 6 SOC. Behav., 1973, 14(4), 374-380.

26. ZUCKERMAN, M., EYSENCK, S., & EYSENCK, H. J. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparison. J . Consult. 6 Clin. Psychol., 1978,

1965, 36(2), 413-424.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

46(1), 139-149.

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine 1 Gustave L. Levy Place Annenberg 22-74 New York, New York 10029

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

07:

29 0

5 N

ovem

ber

2014