2002
DOI: 10.1037/0022-006x.70.4.998
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differentiating stages of smoking intensity among adolescents: Stage-specific psychological and social influences.

Abstract: Researchers' understanding of the impact of sociocultural and psychological factors on the various stages of adolescent smoking uptake is limited. Using national data, the authors examined transitions across smoking stages among adolescents (N = 20,747) as a function of interpersonal, familial, and peer domains. Peer smoking was particularly influential on differentiating regular smoking, whereas alcohol use was most influential on earlier smoking. Although significant, depression and delinquency were attenuat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
86
1
4

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(98 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(88 reference statements)
7
86
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…(b) Did you smoke at least one cigarette in the past 30 days and if so, how many? These questions made it possible to categorize the respondents into four groups: never tried, experimenter (tried it but did not smoke during the past 30 days), intermittent smokers (did not smoke every day during the past 30 days), and regular or established smokers (smoked every day during the past 30 days; see this categorization in LloydRichardson, Papandonatos, Kazura, Stanton, & Niaura, 2002 ). In the present analysis, smoking status was dichotomized into nonsmokers who did not smoke during the past 30 days (nonsmokers and experimenters combined and coded 0) and smokers who smoked during the past 30 days (intermittent regular smokers combined and coded 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(b) Did you smoke at least one cigarette in the past 30 days and if so, how many? These questions made it possible to categorize the respondents into four groups: never tried, experimenter (tried it but did not smoke during the past 30 days), intermittent smokers (did not smoke every day during the past 30 days), and regular or established smokers (smoked every day during the past 30 days; see this categorization in LloydRichardson, Papandonatos, Kazura, Stanton, & Niaura, 2002 ). In the present analysis, smoking status was dichotomized into nonsmokers who did not smoke during the past 30 days (nonsmokers and experimenters combined and coded 0) and smokers who smoked during the past 30 days (intermittent regular smokers combined and coded 1).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wills et al (109) found among 1702 adolescents followed from age 12 to age 15 that positive affectivity, or feeling happy, interested, and relaxed, was protective against the risk of emotional distress for cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use. Resources that have been found to compensate for the effects of emotional distress include family connectedness (42,63) and parental involvement with school (42).…”
Section: Substance Usementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notice that all the formulas in Table 1 are false in the real world as universally quantified logical statements, but capture useful information on friendships and smoking habits, when viewed as features of a Markov network. For example, it is well known that teenage friends tend to have similar smoking habits (Lloyd-Richardson et al, 2002). In fact, an MLN like the one in Table 1 succinctly represents a type of model that is a staple of social network analysis (Wasserman & Faust, 1994).…”
Section: Markov Logic Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%