Dr. MJC was supported inhibitor Pfizer by a Career Development Award from National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23 DA020482). Declaration of Interests None declared. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Drs Jane G. Zapka and Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Smoking experimentation may represent normative adolescent risk taking or mark the onset of chronic smoking (Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1989). Family processes are theorized to discriminate transient from persistent pathways (Graber & Brooks-Gunn, 1999; Schulenberg, Maggs, & Hurrelman, 1997). Empirically based methods that enable this distinction are critical for the development of effective targeted intervention (Dierker, Avenevoli, Goldberg, & Glantz, 2004).

Parental behavior (parenting and smoking status) is particularly influential in determining whether experimentation escalates to regular smoking (Bricker et al., 2007; Darling & Cumsille, 2003). Recently, ��smoking-specific socialization�� (e.g., discussion, punishment, and consequences) has demonstrated incremental utility in prediction of youths�� smoking trajectories (Chassin et al., 2005; Middlecamp-Kodl & Mermelstein, 2004). However, the direction of effects is inconsistent, perhaps due to variations in measurement and moderation by parental smoking status. For example, positive effects of frequency and quality of communication are greater when parents are nonsmokers, whereas punishment has positive effects when parents are nonsmokers and negative effects when parents are smokers (Chassin et al.

, 2005; Harakeh, Scholte, de Vries, & Engels, 2005). In addition, more frequent parent�Cteen communications about smoking are associated with increased risk of smoking; however, longitudinal findings suggest that higher frequency may be a reaction to experimentation rather than a risk factor (Ennett, Baumann, Foshee, Pemberton, & Hicks, 2001; Harakeh et al., 2005). Questionnaire measures of qualitative aspects of smoking-specific communications (e.g. responsive, constructive) also exert a protective effect on youth smoking (Engels & Willemsen, 2004; Harakeh et al., 2005). Thus, deepening understanding of individual differences in smoking-specific communication patterns is promising for specifying mechanisms by which varying family processes exert their influence.

Standardized direct observations methods have unique potential to advance this line of inquiry. Observation methods generate a nuanced characterization of the communication processes by which messages and attitudes about smoking are transmitted and Brefeldin_A responded to within families. While parental smoking-specific socialization is a critical aspect of smoking-related family processes, it occurs within a dynamic conversational context (Ary, James, & Biglan, 1999).