1. Introduction
The tobacco epidemic is one of the most important public health threats the world has ever faced, and smoking among young people has been especially a major concern at the individual, familial, and national level. Research has shown that although smoking initiation primarily occurs during adolescence years, many young adults may also develop their smoking habits during their college years (Von Ah, Ebert, Ngamvitroj, Park, & Kang, 2005; Everett et al., 1999). This concern is compounded by the fact that younger smokers (18 to 29 y) do not heed smoking-associated health warnings (Kviz, Clark, Crittenden, Warnecke, & Freels,  1995) and try cigarette despite the clear evidence on its adverse effects on health (Von Ah et al., 2005). These findings suggest an urgent need for investigating contributors of smoking among youth and providing preventive programs at universities.
According to the literature, family factors are critical determinants of smoking among youth. In his social control theory, Hirschi (1969) suggested that youth participate in delinquency due to the lack of affective attachments to their parents. In his theory, children will adopt and adhere to pro-social norms where there are stronger bonds between them and their parents. Consistent with this claim, social-psychological theories suggest that lack of family bonding leads to spending more time with peers, rejection of conventional norms, contributing in delinquent behaviors such as smoking, and finally more positive attitudes toward smoking (Petraitis, Flay, & Miller, 1995). Based on evidence, healthy parent-child communication and sufficient parental monitoring are protective factors against adolescence smoking (Mott, Crowe, Richardson, &, Flay, 1999; Simons-Morton et al., 1999). In general, adolescents who report positive family relationships, including greater perceptions of parental concern, support, and communication, are less likely to smoke (Shakib et al., 2003; Simons-Morton et al., 1999; Pederson, Koval, McGrady, & Tyas, 1998).
In line with this theoretical framework, various studies have shown the associations between youth smoking and different family factors, such as parenting style and strategies (Wang, Krishnakumar, & Narine, 2014; Piko & Balazs, 2012), warmth and the quality of the parent-child relationship (Roy, 2009; Johnston & Thomas, 2008; Shakib et al., 2005; Miller & Volk, 2002), family structure and divorce (Kristjansson, Sigfusdottir, Allegrante, & Helgason, 2009; Griesbach, Amos, & Carrie, 2003; Miller & Volk, 2002), parents attitudes and reaction towards smoking (Kristjansson, Sigfusdottir, James, Allegrante, & Helgason, 2010; Yazici, 2008), parents and sibling smoking (Scherrer et al., 2012, Weiss & Garbanati, 2004; Shakib et al., 2003; Miller & Volk, 2002; Tyas & Pederson, 1998), and perceived family life (Yazici, 2008; Johnston & Thomas, 2008; Glendinning, Shucksmith, & Hendry, 1997).
Despite the relative support for family factors, empirical findings have not been always consistent. In other words, although some studies have found strong relationships between family factors and later smoking or substance use, some studies have reported weak (Sampson & Laub, 1995; Conrad, Flay, & Hill, 1992) or insignificant (Von Ah et al., 2005) associations. For example, Von Ah et al. (2005) reported that familial emotional and social support did not significantly reduce cigarette smoking behavior among college students. In another study, Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty and Olshavsky (1984) found that parental control, parental supportiveness, and parental expectation were the weak predictors of cigarette smoking. Miller and Volk (2002) attributed many of these null findings to unreliable single item measures of family relationships used in most research. On the other hand, Darling and Cumsille (2003) suggested that transitional nature of adolescence, complexity, and multidimensionality of family forms and influences, and interrelationships of family influences with other key developmental contexts are the main 3 dilemmas that affect researchers’ findings on this issue. Regarding these mixed findings, further research is warranted to identify the critical aspects of family relationships in youth smoking and provide valuable information for designing successful parent-child interventions.
Gender has also considered an important factor influencing children’s smoking and delinquent behaviors, but despite the relative well-established associations between family factors and adolescent smoking, the unique influence of mothers and fathers on girls’ and boys’ substance use has received relatively limited attention. Studies have shown that mothers have more open and comfortable relationships with both daughters and sons (Rosnati, Iafrate, & Scabini, 2007; Ackard, Neumark-Sztainer, Story, & Perry, 2006) and spend more time with their children, especially in the early developmental stages; thus mothers who exhibit poor parenting skills affect more negatively their children compared to fathers (Ohannessian et al., 2004). Researchers suggest that negative relationship with primary caregiver can lead to later psychological and interpersonal problems. For example, children of these mothers may experience low self-esteem, stress, and anxiety, and try to reduce these negative feelings through smoking and substance use. In another study, Luk, Farhat, Iannotti, and Simons-Morton (2010) found that parent communication with adolescent substance use would vary with respect to substance and gender and further research should be carried out to understand gender-specific differences with reference to adolescent substance use.
This study aimed to examine: 1) the extent to which mother-child and father-child relationships could predict smoking status among college students; 2) the extent to which mother-child and father-child relationships could predict smoking intensity among college students; and 3) the extent to which mother-child and father-child relationships could predict girls’ and boys’ smoking status. This research addressed the gap in prior research by investigating the unique role of mother-child and father-child relationships in the smoking behavior of male and female college students. It was hypothesized that mother-child and father-child relationships can predict smoking behavior, and that mother-child relationship is the stronger predictor of smoking. It was also anticipated that mother-child and father-child relationships can predict smoking intensity among college students.
2. Methods
The present research was a cross-sectional study. The sample consisted of 241 Iranian college students who were selected using snowball sampling method among all the graduate and undergraduate students of the Guilan University in academic year 2014-15. Students were asked about their smoking habits. Students who reported irregular or intermittent smoking were excluded from the study, while others grouped into two different categories: smokers (n=142: 50 females and 92 males) and nonsmokers (n=99: 51 females and 48 males); and low (n=62), moderate (n=40), and high (n=40) nicotine dependents (according to Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence). The sample size was determined using Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) formula. The participants were between 18 to 29 years old (smokers: 23.28±3.92 y; nonsmokers: 21.04±1.96 y), and had no significant difference according to their dwelling status (P=0.83), marriage status (P=0.162), education (P=0.128), and income (P=0.53). Students who reported drug abuse were excluded from the study. Sample’s demographic data were collected investigating gender, age, educational level, income, employment status, marriage status, and dwelling status.
Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) is the modified version of the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ), consisting of 6 items designed to assess nicotine dependence intensity (Heatherton, Kozlowski, Frecker, & Fagerstrom, 1991). Item scoring is based on procedures developed by Heatherton, Kozlowski,  Frecker and Fagerstrom (1991) and items are summed to yield a total score (possible range=0-10). Based on their scores, respondents are divided into 3 groups: low-dependence on nicotine, moderate-dependence on nicotine, and high-dependence on nicotine. This scale showed good psychometric properties in Iranian (81% to 83%) (Azizie, Mirzaei, & Shams, 2010) and non-Iranian samples (Meneses-Gaya, Zuardi, Loureiro & Crippa, 2009). FTND demonstrated good internal consistency in the present sample (71%).
Parent-Child Relationship Survey (PCRS) is an instrument designed to measure adults’ perceptions of their parent-child relationship. PCRS comes in two forms, one for assessing the mother-child relationship (24-item), and one for assessing father-child relationship (24-item); both forms are identical. PCRS is scored in a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (so much) by reverse-scoring negatively worded items (9, 13, 14), and then summing individual item scores and dividing by the number of items. PCRS has shown excellent validity and internal consistency, with good α values for the father (89% to 94%, with overall α of 96%) and mother (61% to 94%, with the overall α of 94%) subscales (Fine, Moreland, & Schwebel, 1983). Research has shown PCRS’s excellent validity and reliability (92% to 93%) in Iranian samples (Parhizgar, 2002; Dadash, 2004). This scale showed excellent internal consistency in this study (93% for both mother and father forms).
Students at the university campus were asked to participate in a research project. For this aim, they were asked about their smoking status. Students who reported no smoking grouped as nonsmokers, while students who reported regular or established smoking habit grouped as smokers. After giving a brief summary of the research project, taking their consents, and ensuring the anonymity of the questionnaires, students were asked to answer the questionnaires. At the end, students were thanked for their cooperation. Participants received no cash bonus.
All the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS-20. Since the dependent variables were dichotomous, three binary logistic regressions and one multinomial logistic regression were conducted to analyze the predictability of smoking status and smoking intensity. As the study aimed to investigate the gender-specific variations in smoking behavior, separate analyses were conducted for females and males. 
3. Results
First, the obtained data were checked for multicollinearity and outliers as the primary assumptions of logistic regression (Pallant, 2013). The results of correlation coefficient test and the values of tolerance and VIF in male (r=0.43; Tolerance: 0.81; VIF: 1.23), female (r=0.54; Tolerance: 0.71; VIF: 1.41), and smoker and non-smoker (r=0.49; Tolerance: 0.76; VIF: 1.32) groups showed no multicollinearity. After confirming these core assumptions, binary and multinomial logistic regression were used to examine the predictability of smoking using the predictors. The mean and standard deviation of mother-child and father-child relationships in groups are presented in Table 1.

Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of mother-child and father-child relationships on the likelihood that respondents would report smoking. The model contained two independent variables (mother-child and father-child relationship). The full model was statistically significant (χ2 (2, 241)=10.41, P<0.01), indicating the model was able to distinguish between respondents who reported smoking and respondents who did not report smoking. The model as a whole explained between 4.2% (Cox & Snell R square) and 5.7% (NagelKerke R square) of the variance in smoking status, and correctly classified 61.8% of the cases. As shown in Table 2, mother-child relationship made a statistically significant contribution to the model, and recorded an odd ratio of 0.67. This indicated that respondents who scored higher mother-child relationship were 0.67 times less likely to report smoking, controlling for all other factors in the model.

Then, multinomial logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of mother-child and father-child relationships on smoking intensity. The model contained two independent variables (mother-child and father-child relationships) and 4 groups (nonsmoker, low, moderate, high). The full model was statistically significant (χ2 (6, 241)=18.82, P<0.01), indicating the ability of the model to distinguish between respondents who reported different levels of smoking intensity. The model as a whole explained between 7.5% (Cox & Snell R square) and 8.3% (NagelKerke R square) of the variance in smoking intensity, and correctly classified 49.4% of the cases. As shown in Table 3, mother-child relationship could significantly distinguish nonsmokers from people with low dependence on nicotine, and recorded an odds ratio of 0.65, which indicated that each increase in mother-child relationship score decrease the likelihood of being in low nicotine dependent group by a factor of 0.65, controlling for all other factors in the model. Father-child relationship did not contribute significantly to the model. In addition, mother-child relationship could significantly distinguish nonsmokers from people with moderate dependence on nicotine, and recorded an odds ratio of 0.58, which indicated that each increase in mother-child relationship score decrease the likelihood of being in moderate nicotine dependent group by a factor of 0.58, controlling for all other factors in the model. Father-child relationship did not contribute significantly to the model. Finally, none of the predictors were able to distinguish nonsmokers from people with high dependence on nicotine.
Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of mother-child and father-child relationships on the likelihood that female respondents would report smoking. The model contained two independent variables (mother-child and father-child relationships). The full model was not statistically significant (χ2 (2, 101)=5.60, P>0.05), indicating that the model as a whole was not able to distinguish between females who reported smoking and those who did not. The model as a whole explained between 5.4% (Cox & Snell R square) and 7.2% 

(NagelKerke R square) of the variance in smoking status, and correctly classified 58.4% of the cases. As shown in Table 4, neither mother-child nor father-child relationship made a statistically significant contribution to the model.
Finally, binary logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of mother-child and father-child relationships on the likelihood that male respondents would report smoking. The model contained two independent variables (mother-child and father-child relationships). The full model as a whole was statistically significant (χ2 (2, 140)=7.45, P<0.05), indicating that the model was able to distinguish between males who reported smoking and males who did not report smoking. The model as a whole explained between 3.8% (Cox & Snell R square) and 5.3% (NagelKerke R square) of the variance in smoking status, and correctly classified 65.0% of the cases. As shown in Table 5, mother-child relationship made a statistically significant contribution to the model, and recorded an odd ratio of 0.57. This indicated that male respondents who reported higher mother-child relationship were 0.57 times less likely to report smoking while controlling for all other factors in the model.
4. Discussion
The present study is among the rare systematic investigations of gender-specific variations regarding the association between parent-child relationships and smoking behavior in college students. This paper addresses the gap in research by investigating how mothers and fathers may play different roles in the association between parent-child relationship and their children’s smoking behavior. In addition, the present research extends previous investigation by examining mothers’ and fathers’ role in nicotine dependence intensity as well.
The current study found inconsistent support for its first hypothesis. According to the findings, mother-child relationship, but not father-child relationship, was the significant predictor of smoking status. This finding is in part consistent with the findings of Luk et al. (2010). This study also found mixed support for the second hypothesis that mother-child and father-child relationships can predict smoking intensity in college students. According to the findings, mother-child relationship was the significant predictor of low and moderate dependence on nicotine, while it could not predict high nicotine dependence. On the other hand, father-child relationship could not predict smoking intensity. Finally, the study found inconsistent support for its third and fourth hypotheses that mother-child and father-child relationships can predict smoking status in both female and male college students. While, mother-child relationship was the significant predictor of males’ smoking, it could not predict females’ smoking. On the other hand, father-child relationship could not predict neither females’ nor males’ smoking. This finding is in part consistent with the findings of Luk et al. (2010), who reported that mother-child easy communication was negatively associated with smoking among sons. They also found that neither mother-child nor father-child easy communication was associated with smoking among girls.
As mentioned earlier, father-child relationship was not the significant predictor of smoking and smoking intensity. In addition, mother-child relationship could only explain small to moderate amount of variance for smoking behavior in college students. There are several explanations for these findings. First, smoking, as a multifaceted behavior, is influenced by different factors, such as peer pressure, social factors, risk-taking behavior, advertising and media influence, and psychological factors (Morgenstern, Sargent, Engels, Florek, & Hanewinkel, 2013; Jung & Chung, 2013; Bertholet, Faouzi, Studer, Daeppen, & Gmel, 2013; Scherrer et al., 2012; Kristjansson et al., 2010; Kristjansson et al., 2009; Naing et al., 2004; Tyas & Pederson, 1998; Sarason, Mankowski, Peterson, & Dinh, 1992). Thus, in order to understand smoking behavior, all these factors and their interrelations and implications have to be considered.
Second, these results may represent the sample’s characteristics. In their college years, youths become increasingly more independent and spend less time with their parents and more time with their peers; so peers and friends may play more important role in youths’ lives and decision-makings. In line with this claim, a growing body of research has emphasized on peers’ role in youth substance use (Kristjansson, Sigfusdottir, & Allegrante, 2013; Rostila, Almquist, Ostberg, Edling, & Rydgren, 2013; Fuemmeler et al., 2013; Horner et al., 2011; Stanton et al., 2009; Warren, Joens, Eriksen, & Asma, 2006).
The finding that mother-child relationship can only predict low to moderate levels of nicotine intensity implies several possibilities. First, this finding can be indicative of a major difference between the initiating, aggravating, and perpetuating factors of smoking. In other words, mother-child relationship may drive someone to smoke, but it cannot determine later nicotine dependence intensity; instead, as Daw et al. (2013) and Hughes (1986) suggested, smoking intensity may be influenced by factors such as genetic predisposition. In line with this statement, Belsky et al. (2013) suggested that genetic risk score was unrelated to smoking initiation; rather it was associated with an increased likelihood of converting to daily smoker, heavier nicotine dependence, more frequent smoking, more reliance on smoking to cope with stress, and more failure in cessation attempts. Second, studies have shown that smokers have higher chances of falling into depression and anxiety disorders. According to Boden, Fergusson, and Horwood (2010), there is a reciprocal relationship between smoking and depression in which smoking increases the risk of symptoms of depression; depression and anxiety may in turn perpetuate smoking behavior. Thus, it seems plausible that students’ nicotine dependence intensity, especially in heavier level, be influenced by some other factors.
This study did not find any support for the role of mother-child and father-child relationships in females’ smoking behavior. According to Luk et al. (2010), one possible explanation for this finding relates to parents’ different communication content towards sons and daughters. They believe that parents are more likely to underestimate the prevalence of risk behaviors among daughters than sons; so, they may spend more time talking to their sons about the negative outcomes of smoking. In addition, it is possible that girls have completely different reasons for initiating smoking. More research is needed to clear our understanding about the correlates of smoking in females.
The present study supported the role of mother-child relationship in smoking behavior and smoking intensity, but the amount of variance explained by these predictors was relatively small. However, based on Allen, Donohue, Griffin, Ryan and Turner (2003) findings, other factors may have a greater influence than parents on substance use, but parents do exhibit an influence on this behavior, which cannot be ignored. Youths who report positive mother-child relationship may experience more positive family environment, which can protect them against stressful events and help them manage their problems using more efficient coping strategies. They may also spend more time talking to their mothers, which rises their awareness about the harmful effects of smoking, and protect them against risk factors such as misinformation, media influences, advertising, or social pressures. In sum, further research is needed to clear our understanding of gender-specific correlates of smoking among youth.
The results of this study have important implication for smoking prevention and intervention efforts. According to the findings, improving mother-child relationship may be beneficial in the prevention and intervention program, especially for male youth. It is also advantageous to raise parents’ awareness on daughters’ smoking behavior and help them to play a more active protective role in their relationships with their daughters. Further research is needed to determine the exact role of parent-child relationship in youth smoking behavior. Future studies can investigate the protective role of parent-child relationship as a mediator and moderator in the relationship of smoking and other risk factors.
The findings of present study should be interpreted cautiously because of two limitations. First, this study had cross-sectional and correlational nature, so casual conclusions cannot be drawn out of it. We suggest that future studies investigate the long-term role of parent-child relationship in youth smoking using longitudinal design. Second, these findings are limited to college students, and any generalization to other populations has to be done cautiously.
Acknowledgments
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

References
Ackard, D. M., Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., & Perry, C. (2006). Parent–child connectedness and behavioral and emotional health among adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.09.013

Allen, M., Donohue, W. A., Griffin, A., Ryan, D., & Turner, M. M. M. (2003). Comparing the influence of parents and peers on the choice to use drugs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(2), 163–186. doi: 10.1177/0093854802251002

Azizi, A., Mirzaei, A., Shams, J. (2010). [Correlation between distress tolerance and emotional regulation with students smoking dependence (Persian)]. Hakim Health System Research Journal, 13(1), 11-18.

Belsky, D. W., Moffitt, T. E., Baker, T. B., Biddle, A. K., Evans, J. P., Harrington, H., et al. (2013). Polygenic risk and the developmental progression to heavy, persistent smoking and nicotine dependence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(5), 534. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.736

Bertholet, N., Faouzi, M., Studer, J., Daeppen, J. B., & Gmel, G. (2013). Perception of tobacco, cannabis, and alcohol use of others is associated with one’s own use. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 8(1), 15. doi: 10.1186/1940-0640-8-15

Boden, J. M., Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2010). Cigarette smoking and depression: Tests of causal linkages using a longitudinal birth cohort. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 196(6), 440–446. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.065912

Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Corty, E., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1984). Predicting the onset of cigarette smoking in adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(3), 224–243. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02233.x

Conrad, K. M., Flay, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smoking cigarettes: Predictors of onset. Addiction, 87(12), 1711–1724. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02684.x.

Dadash, Z. (2004). [Administration of family reconstruction in improving mother-child relationship (Persian)] [MSc. thesis]. Tehran: Khatam University.

Darling, N., & Cumsille, P. (2003). Theory, measurement, and methods in the study of family influences on adolescent smoking. Addiction, 98, 21–36. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.98.s1.3.x

Daw, J., Shanahan, M., Harris, K. M., Smolen, A., Haberstick, B., & Boardman, J. D. (2013). Genetic sensitivity to peer behaviors. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(1), 92–108. doi: 10.1177/0022146512468591

Everett, S. A., Husten, C. G., Kann, L., Warren, C. W., Sharp, D., & Crossett, L. (1999). Smokinginitiation and smoking patterns among us college students. Journal of American College Health, 48(2), 55–60. doi: 10.1080/07448489909595674

Fine, M. A., Moreland, J. R., & Schwebel, A. I. (1983). Long-term effects of divorce on parent-child relationships. Developmental Psychology, 19(5), 703–713. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.19.5.703

Fuemmeler, B., Lee, C. T., Ranby, K. W., Clark, T., McClernon, F. J., Yang, C., et al. (2013). Individual- and community-level correlates of cigarette-smoking trajectories from age 13 to 32 in a U.S. population-based sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 132(1-2), 301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.021

Glendinning, A., Shucksmith, J., & Hendry, L. (1997). Family life and smoking in adolescence. Social Science & Medicine, 44(1), 93–101. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00238-9

Griesbach, D., Amos, A., & Currie, C. (2003). Adolescent smoking and family structure in Europe. Social Science & Medicine, 56(1), 41–52. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00014-x

Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstrom, K. O. (1991). The fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire. Addiction, 86(9), 1119–1127. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1991.tb01879.x

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: Berkeley University of California Press.

Horner, P., Grogan-Kaylor, A., Delva, J., Bares, C., Andrade, F.,  & Castillo, M. (2011). The association of family and peer factors with tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use among Chilean adolescents in neighborhood context. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 2(1), 163-172. doi: 10.2147/sar.s20507

Hughes, J. R. (1986). Genetics of smoking: A brief review. Behavior Therapy, 17(4), 335–345. doi: 10.1016/s0005-7894(86)80066-1

Johnston, V., & Thomas, D. P. (2008). Smoking behaviours in a remote Australian Indigenous community: The influence of family and other factors. Social Science & Medicine, 67(11), 1708–1716. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.016

Jung, M., & Chung, D. (2012). Evidence of social contextual effects on adolescent smoking in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health, 25(3), 260–270. doi: 10.1177/1010539512461667

Kristjansson, A., Sigfusdottir, I., & Allegrante, J. P. (2013). Adolescent substance use and peer use: A multilevel analysis of cross-sectional population data. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 8(1), 27. doi: 10.1186/1747-597x-8-27

Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., Allegrante, J. P., & Helgason, A. R. (2009). Parental divorce and adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use: Assessing the importance of family conflict. Acta Paediatrica, 98(3), 537–542. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01133.x

Kristjansson, A. L., Sigfusdottir, I. D., James, J. E., Allegrante, J. P., & Helgason, A. R. (2010). Perceived parental reactions and peer respect as predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 35(3), 256–259. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.10.002

Kviz, F. J., Clark, M. A., Crittenden, K. S., Warnecke, R. B., & Freels, S. (1995). Age and Smoking Cessation Behaviors. Preventive Medicine, 24(3), 297–307. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1995.1048

Luk, J. W., Farhat, T., Iannotti, R. J., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2010). Parent–child communication and substance use among adolescents: Do father and mother communication play a different role for sons and daughters? Addictive Behaviors, 35(5), 426–431. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.12.009

Meneses-Gaya, I. C., Zuardi, A. W., Loureiro, S. R., & Crippa, J. A. (2009). Psychometric properties of the Fagerström Test for nicotine dependence. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, 35(1), 73–82. doi: 10.1590/s1806-37132009000100011

Miller, T. Q., & Volk, R. J. (2002). Family relationships and adolescent cigarette smoking: Results from a national longitudinal survey. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(3), 945–972. doi: 10.1177/002204260203200314

Morgenstern, M., Sargent, J. D., Engels, R. C. M. E., Florek, E., & Hanewinkel, R. (2013). Smoking in European adolescents: relation between media influences, family affluence, and migration background. Addictive Behaviors, 38(10), 2589–2595. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.06.008

Mott, J., Crowe, P. A., Richardson, J., & Flay, B. (1999). After-school supervision and adolescent cigarette smoking: Contribution of the setting and intensity of after-school self-care. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22 (1), 35-58. doi: 10.1023/a:1018747602026

Naing, N., Ahmad, Z., Musa, R., Hamid, F., Ghazali, H., & Bakar, M. (2004). Factors related to smoking habits of male adolescents. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2(3), 133. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-2-3-133

Ohannessian, C. M., Hesselbrock, V. M., Kramer, J., Bucholz, K. K., Schuckit, M. A., Kuperman, S., & Nurnberger, J. I. (2004). Parental substance use consequences and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(6), 725–730. doi: m10.15288/jsa.2004.65.725

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS: Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS, (5th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Parhizgar, A. (2002). [A comparative study of relationship between child-parents relation and identity crisis and lack of identity crisis in female high school students (Persian)] [MSc. thesis]. Tehran: Tarbiat Moalem University.

Pederson, L. L., Koval, J. J., McGrady, G. A., & Tyas, S. L. (1998). Thedegree and type of relationship between psychosocial variables and smoking status for students in grade 8: is there a dose—response relationship? Preventive Medicine, 27(3), 337–347. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0305

Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 67–86. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.67

Piko, B. F., & Balázs, M. Á. (2012). Authoritative parenting style and adolescent smoking and drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 37(3), 353–356. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.11.022

Rosnati, R., Iafrate, R., & Scabini, E. (2007). Parent–adolescent communication in foster, inter-country adoptive, and biological Italian families: Gender and generational differences. International Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 36–45. doi: 10.1080/00207590500412128

Rostila, M., Almquist, Y., Ostberg, V., Edling, C., & Rydgren, J. (2013). Social network characteristics and daily smoking among young adults in Sweden. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(12), 6517–6533. doi:10.3390/ijerph10126517

Roy, N. (2009). Family relationships and the impact on adolescent abuse. [MSc. thesis]. Lynchburg: Liberty University. 

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Sarason, I. G., Mankowski, E. S., Peterson, A. V., & Dinh, K. T. (1992). Adolescents’ reasons for smoking. Journal of School Health, 62 (5), 185-190. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.1992.tb06039.x

Scherrer, J. F., Xian, H., Pan, H., Pergadia, M. L., Madden, P. A. F., Grant, J. D.,et al. (2012). Parent, sibling and peer influences on smoking initiation, regular smoking and nicotine dependence. Results from a genetically informative design. Addictive Behaviors, 37(3), 240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.10.005

Shakib, S., Mouttapa, M., Johnson, C. A., Ritt-Olson, A., Trinidad, D. R., Gallaher, P. E., et al. (2003). Ethnic variation in parenting characteristics and adolescent smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 88–97. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00140-x

Shakib, S., Zheng, H., Johnson, C. A., Chen, X., Sun, P., Palmer, P. H., et al. (2005). Family characteristics and smoking among urban and rural adolescents living in China. Preventive Medicine, 40(1), 83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.029

Shenassa, E., McCaffery, J., Niaura, R., Swan, G., Khroyan, T., Shakib, S., et al. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of tobacco use and dependence: A transdisciplinary perspective. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(6), 55–69. doi: 10.1080/14622200310001625500

Simons-Morton, B., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L., Saylor, K. E., Eitel, P., & Yu, K. (1999). Psychosocial,school, and parent factors associated with recent smoking among early-adolescent boys and girls. Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 138–148. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0404

Stanton, C. A., Papandonatos, G., Lloyd-Richardson, E. E., Kazura, A., Shiu, S. Y., & Niaura, R. (2009). How do mothers, fathers, and friends influence stages of adolescent smoking? Adolescent and Family Health, 4 (3), 95-111. PMCID: PMC3514408

Tabachnik, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Tyas, S. L., & Pederson, L. L. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: A critical review of the literature. Tobacco Control, 7(4), 409–420. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.4.409

Von Ah, D., Ebert, S., Ngamvitroj, A., Park, N., & Kang, D. H. (2005). Factors related to cigarette smoking initiation and use among college students. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 3(1), 27. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-3-1-27

Wang, Y., Krishnakumar, A., & Narine, L. (2014). Parenting practices and adolescent smoking in mainland China: The mediating effect of smoking-related cognitions. Journal of Adolescence, 37(6), 915–925. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.06.010

Warren, C., Jones, N., Eriksen, M., & Asma, S. (2006). Patterns of global tobacco use in young people and implications for future chronic disease burden in adults. The Lancet, 367(9512), 749–753. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68192-0

Weiss, J. W., & Garbanati, J. A. (2004). Relationship of acculturation and family functioning to smoking attitudes and behaviors among asian-american adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(2), 193–204. doi: 10.1023/b:jcfs.0000015707.63397.4c.

Yazici, H. (2008). The relationship between the Turkish adolescents’ smoking and their family environment. World Applied Sciences Journal, 4 (4), 600-604.