ABSTRACT We used data from a prospective cohort study of twins to investigate the influence of unmeasured genetic and measured and unmeasured environmental factors on the smoking behaviour

of adolescents and young adults. Twins were surveyed in 1988 (aged 11–18 years), 1991, 1996 and 2004 with data from 1409, 1121, 732 and 758 pairs analysed from each survey wave,

respectively. Questionnaires assessed the smoking behaviour of twins and the perceived smoking behaviour of friends and parents. Using a novel logistic regression analysis, we simultaneously

modelled individual risk and excess concordance for current smoking as a function of zygosity, survey wave, parental smoking and peer smoking. Being concordant for having peers who smoked

to indirect effects acting through the social environment. Smoking prevention efforts may benefit more by targeting social factors than attempting to identify genetic factors associated with

smoking. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS SMOKING REMAINS ASSOCIATED WITH EDUCATION AFTER CONTROLLING FOR SOCIAL BACKGROUND AND GENETIC FACTORS IN A STUDY OF 18 TWIN COHORTS Article

Open access 31 July 2022 GENE-ENVIRONMENT CORRELATIONS AND GENETIC CONFOUNDING UNDERLYING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN MEDIA USE AND MENTAL HEALTH Article Open access 19 January 2023 GENETIC

OVERLAP AND CAUSAL ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SMOKING BEHAVIOURS AND MENTAL HEALTH Article Open access 21 July 2021 MAIN Smoking is an important cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in

later life (Ezzati and Lopez, 2004), so there is a need to understand the factors associated with its uptake and establishment. Twin studies have the potential to identify whether genetic

factors might play a role in explaining individual variation in smoking behaviours. The observation that identical (monozygotic; MZ) twin pairs are more similar than same-sex non-identical

(dizygotic; DZ) twin pairs is often interpreted as showing that genetic factors play a role, because this finding is consistent with such an explanation under the assumptions of the classic

twin model (CTM). One of the main assumptions of the CTM is that the effects of the shared environment on the relevant trait are the same for MZ and DZ pairs (the equal environments

assumption (EEA)). Under this assumption, any greater similarity for MZ pairs compared with DZ pairs is attributed to their greater genetic similarity. Using the CTM, studies of the smoking

behaviour of adult twins have been interpreted as showing that genetic factors play a major role in both initiation and persistence of smoking (Carmelli et al, 1992; Heath and Martin, 1993;

Heath et al, 1993, 1999; Madden et al, 1999, 2004; Maes et al, 2006). Environmental and lifestyle factors shared by twins have been found to play only a small role in adult smoking (Sullivan

and Kendler, 1999; Li et al, 2003), although they may be more important in the smoking behaviours of adolescents and young adults (Boomsma et al, 1994; Han et al, 1999; Koopmans et al,

1999; McGue et al, 2000; Hopfer et al, 2003; Rhee et al, 2003; White et al, 2003). There is increasing recognition that violations of the EEA for smoking may influence heritability estimates

for smoking and therefore its adequacy needs examination (Kendler and Gardner, 1998; Rende et al, 2005; Pergadia et al, 2006; Prescott et al, 2006; Kaprio, 2007; Tishler and Carey, 2007).

Several genetically informative sibling studies have found that the role of the common environment in explaining variation in smoking is greater among siblings (including twins) who share

friends than those who do not (Madden et al, 2004; Rende et al, 2005). Although various interpretations have been given for these findings, there is some agreement that considering social

influences on smoking in genetically informative designs may increase our understanding of the aetiology of smoking (Conger, 2005; Merikangas, 2005; Rende et al, 2005; Dick et al, 2007). We

have conducted a prospective, longitudinal study of smoking from adolescence to adulthood using MZ and DZ twin pairs, utilising a social influence framework to understand smoking uptake.

Twins were measured at four times (waves 1–4) spanning 17 years, with the median age of the twins increasing from 15 years at wave 1 to 31 years at wave 4. During this time, the twins began

to live apart and spend substantially less time with one another. Data on the use of tobacco as well as information on the smoking behaviours of friends and parents, factors found to be

influential in adolescent smoking behaviour (Conrad et al, 1992; Tyas and Pederson, 1998), were collected at each wave. We used data from this study to investigate more fully the relative

influence of friends' smoking, genes and other non-genetic factors on smoking during adolescence and young adulthood. We also used a novel analytic method that allows us to study

factors that may modify both individual behaviours and the similarity of behaviour within twin pairs. We focus on current smoking, rather than whether participants had ever smoked, as it is

a person's continued current smoking that is of greatest relevance to their future health. MATERIALS AND METHODS PROCEDURE The procedures for recruiting the sample into wave 1 have been

described previously (Hopper et al, 1992; White et al, 2003). In brief, during 1988, questionnaires were mailed to adolescent twins (then aged 9–19 years) registered with the Australian

Twin Register via their parents, and completed questionnaires were received from 2863 twins, of whom 1417 were pairs, representing a 97% pairwise response. During 1991, the parents and twins

participating at wave 1 were approached by letter and asked to complete the wave 2 survey. At wave 2, 2356 completed questionnaires were returned. Five years later, the wave 3 questionnaire

was mailed to all twins participating in the wave 1 survey and a total of 1841 were returned. In 2004, the 2726 twins from wave 1 still registered with the Australian Twin Register were

approached and 1884 participated in the study (259 were not contactable and 329 withdrew). Based on the number of contactable twins, a 79% response rate at wave 4 was achieved with 66% of

individuals participating at wave 1 also participating at wave 4. At wave 4, 773 twin pairs participated. For this paper, we used data from the pairs who participated at wave 1, were aged

11–18 years (comprising 99% of wave 1 pairs) and who participated in a subsequent wave. Table 1 shows the number of pairs by type at each wave used in these analyses. Twin pair-type

predicted the probability of the twins participating in the subsequent survey wave, with same-sex DZ twins (odds ratio (OR)=0.81, _P_=0.025) and opposite-sex DZ twins (OR=0.65, _P_<0.001)

being less likely to return than MZ twins. These effects were approximately constant across waves, as indicated by the lack of significant interaction between wave and pair-type. DEPENDENT

VARIABLE: CURRENT SMOKING At waves 1, 2 and 3, respondents indicating that they had smoked in the week before the survey were defined as current smokers. At wave 4, respondents indicating

that they smoked daily or at least weekly were classified as current smokers. SMOKING BEHAVIOURS OF PARENTS, PEERS AND CO-TWINS At each wave, respondents indicated the perceived smoking

status of their mother, father, co-twin and for each of up to four friends. Respondents classified their parents as being a ‘non-smoker’, an ‘ex-smoker’ or a ‘smoker’. We focussed on current

smoking of parents. Due to small numbers reporting that both parents smoked (see Table 1), parental smoking was classified into two groups: neither parent currently smoked or at least one

parent currently smoked. At each wave, twins reported on the smoking status (non-smokers, ex-smokers, occasional, light or heavy smokers) of up to four of their closest friends. The

proportion of friends who engaged in any kind of smoking was determined by dividing the number of smoking friends by the total number of friends listed. For correlations and logistic

regressions, friends' smoking was classified into two groups: no smokers among friends or at least one smoker. At each wave, twins were asked if they were living with their twin, as

well as the frequency of meeting their twin, with responses classified into every day, at least weekly and less than weekly. STATISTICAL ANALYSES Proportions of individual twins who were

current smokers and who had friends who smoked were calculated by wave and pair-type. As there is no _a priori_ reason to prefer tetrachoric correlations to other measures, we estimated both

the Pearson and tetrachoric twin-pair correlations (_r_) for current smoking status and friends' smoking status for each wave and zygosity group. Under the assumptions of the CTM (see

Introduction), we estimated naïve heritability as 2(_r_MZ−_r_DZ) and examined its dependence on correlation type and wave. We estimated parameters in a single model to describe both the

probability of current smoking for individual twins and the probability of concordance of current smoking for pairs. Pairs were defined as being concordant for their smoking behaviour at a

given wave if both were current smokers or if both were not current smokers. Note that specifying the probability of each twin smoking and the probability that the pairs are concordant for

smoking is equivalent to specifying the probabilities of each of the four possible pair-smoking states: both smoke, two combinations where only one smokes and neither smoke (see Appendix).

We used logistic regression to model both individual smoking and pair concordance, and estimated the two sets of parameters simultaneously by maximum likelihood. As the probability of an

individual smoking is not independent of the probability of pair concordance (e.g., if everyone smokes, all pairs will be concordant), we included a compensating term in the predictor of

concordance such that if all coefficients (log-odds for concordance) were zero, the predicted probability of concordance would be exactly as if twins in the same pair were uncorrelated in

their smoking behaviours. Hence, in effect, we estimated predictors of excess concordance. To allow for correlation between observations on the same pairs in separate waves, robust

(Huber–White) estimates of standard errors were used. The optimisation procedure was coded in Stata 8 and Stata 9 (StataCorp, 2003, 2006), using the ML package. Multiple starting points were

used for each run and the progress of the fitting algorithm was monitored to determine, so far as possible, that convergence was to the global maximum likelihood. Convexity of the

likelihood surface was also checked using simulated data, by plotting in the neighbourhood of the analytically determined maximum. The order of twins was randomly permuted at the start of

each run to avoid the possibility of bias due to any unplanned systematic ordering within pairs. Further details of the method are given in the Appendix. Predictors of individual current

smoking could be either individual-specific (sex, smoking among peers) or pair-specific (i.e., zygosity, parental smoking). Predictors of concordance were necessarily pair-specific

(zygosity, parental smoking, same or different sex and age). To capture any time dependence of effects, the wave number was included in the initial model, both as a main effect and in

interaction with zygosity. To minimize bias due to unequal duration of participation, only those variables that were measured at each wave or that remained constant with time (e.g., sex)

were used in the analysis. Only those observations for which both twins participated at the wave could be retained, due to the pairwise nature of the analytic method. RESULTS SAMPLE

DESCRIPTION Smoking status of the twin pair was associated with subsequent survey participation. Pairs in which one (OR=0.62, _P_<0.001) or both (OR=0.49, _P_<0.001) smoked were less

likely to participate in a subsequent survey than were pairs in which neither smoked. However, pairs concordant for smoking status were not significantly more likely to remain in the study

(OR=1.12, _P_=0.25) than non-concordant pairs. The proportion of participating twins who were current smokers increased from wave 1 to wave 3, whereas the proportion of twins with no smokers

among their friends decreased (see Table 1). The proportion of twins indicating that neither parent currently smoked also decreased between waves 1 and 3. Figure 1 shows that the proportion

of twins cohabiting decreased over the period of the study. The frequency of contact within pairs also decreased for all twin pair-types as the twins aged. There was an association between

zygosity and contact, with more MZ twins reporting daily contact with their co-twin than DZ twins. Table 2 shows that, at each wave, the prevalence of current smoking for MZ twins was lower

than for DZ twins. At each wave, and regardless of twin pair-type, twins who were current smokers were much more likely to have smokers among their friends than twins who were not current

smokers: about 90% of twins who smoked had smokers among their friends at each survey wave. CORRELATIONS Table 3 shows that for current smoking, the tetrachoric correlations were in general

higher than Pearson correlations, which translated into higher naïve heritability estimates at waves 2, 3 and 4. There appeared to be a decline in naïve heritability defined in these terms

between waves 3 and 4, more so when measured by Pearson correlation. Table 3 also shows the Pearson and tetrachoric correlations for friends' smoking status and the naïve heritability

estimate for each wave. Correlations were higher for MZ pairs than for DZ pairs and again the tetrachoric correlations were higher than the Pearson correlations. ASSOCIATIONS WITH SMOKING

AND CONCORDANCE Table 4 shows the estimates of multivariate ORs for both the probability of individuals smoking and the probability of excess concordance of current smoking under two models.

Model 1 includes zygosity, parental smoking and wave as predictors of individual smoking. For excess concordance, it includes zygosity and its interaction with wave (shown in Table 4 as the

effect of zygosity at each wave). All estimates shown are adjusted for other variables in the model. Overall, MZ twins were less likely to smoke (_P_<0.001), and this association was

consistent across all waves (there was no interaction with wave number). There was a significant effect of wave indicating the greater probability of being a current smoker with increasing

age. Regarding pair concordance, MZ pairs were more alike than DZ pairs for their smoking behaviours at waves 1, 2 and 3 (_P_=0.003, 0.004 and 0.03, respectively). Model 2 adds to Model 1

the effect of friends' smoking at the individual level as well as the concordance of friends' smoking at the pair level. There was a strong association between an individual's

smoking status and that of their peers (OR=10.9, _P_<0.001), which was far greater than the association with parental smoking (OR=1.75, _P_<0.001). There was no evidence that the

parental or peer associations varied by wave. When modelling the probability of pair concordance for current smoking, concordance of friends' smoking status was a significant predictor

and this association did not differ significantly across waves. Including concordance for friends' smoking in Model 2 reduced the difference between MZ and DZ concordance for smoking

estimated under Model 1 at waves 2, 3 and 4, such that the effect of zygosity was no longer significant at these waves. DISCUSSION Consistent with most other investigators, we found greater

correlation for current smoking in MZ twin pairs than in DZ twin pairs using both Pearson and tetrachoric correlation estimates. The corresponding heritability estimates under the

assumptions of the CTM were consistent with values reported from various twin studies (Carmelli et al, 1992; Heath and Martin, 1993; Heath et al, 1993, 1999; Boomsma et al, 1994; Han et al,

1999; Koopmans et al, 1999; Madden et al, 1999, 2004; McGue et al, 2000; Rhee et al, 2003; Maes et al, 2006). However, using a novel analysis, which allowed us to adjust for both the smoking

status of an individual's friends and the concordance for friends' smoking status within pairs, we found greater concordance for smoking in MZ pairs only at wave 1 when most twins

were living together. There is considerable evidence in the literature that the smoking behaviour of friends has a major influence on the current and future smoking of adolescents and young

adults (Flay et al, 1994, 1998; Distefan et al, 1998; Engels et al, 1999; Chassin et al, 2000; Leatherdale et al, 2005). If, as our study found, MZ pairs are more similar in their

friends' smoking behaviours than are DZ pairs, this could explain some or all of the greater correlation of smoking observed in MZ twins. Our study found this to be the case, at least

during the time when twins start to live apart. If MZ pairs share a more similar environment than DZ pairs, then either the EEA of the CTM is invalid, or the environment must be considered a

manifestation of the twins' genes. The first possibility would result in biased heritability estimates; the second would imply a broad notion of heritability, part of which may be

subject to environmental modification. This is the standard interpretation of heritability used in zoology, where it is used to determine the response to selection (Mulder et al, 2007). The

EEA has been tested only under a limited number of circumstances (Loehlin, 1992) and for only some substances, and the findings have been mixed (Prescott et al, 2006). Although we did not

formally assess this assumption, we found that, compared with DZ twins, MZ twins had more frequent contact with each other at all survey waves and their friends were more similar in smoking

behaviours. Other work has also found that adolescent MZ twin pairs spend more time together and share more friends than do DZ twin pairs (Rende et al, 2005), and that MZ pairs are more

dependent on their co-twin than DZ pairs (Penninkilampi-Kerola et al, 2005). These findings are in line with the suggestion that a ‘special MZ environment’ might contribute to the greater

similarities in the smoking behaviours of MZ twin pairs (Stallings et al, 1999). Directly measuring and adjusting for differences in shared environment may help reduce any resultant bias on

heritability estimates. Several recent studies involving adolescents have commenced this investigation (Rende et al, 2005; Slomkowski et al, 2005; Pergadia et al, 2006; Dick et al, 2007).

Dick et al (2007) found that adjusting for parental contact influenced heritability estimates for smoking and suggested that different environments moderate genetic effects on the

variability in tobacco use. Rende and colleagues found that adjusting for shared friends and amount of contact between twins influenced the role of the shared environment, but not genes, on

smoking variability, suggesting to them a sibling ‘contagion effect’ that operates through environmental processes (Rende et al, 2005; Slomkowski et al, 2005). None of these studies modelled

the influence of concordance of friends' smoking in their models. To disentangle the possible confounding of the effects of genes and friends, we developed an analytic method that

could adjust for measured covariates of smoking. Our approach allowed us to include both the smoking status of each twin's friends and the concordance of friends' smoking status of

a twin pair. After adjusting for these factors, there was no evidence for increased concordance in MZ pairs at waves 2, 3 or 4. A necessary consequence of a genetic contribution to

behaviour is that MZ pairs are more alike in that behaviour than are DZ pairs. If this difference is not observed then it is problematic to accept the hypothesis of a genetic contribution. A

more difficult question is whether greater similarity in MZ pairs is sufficient to conclude a role for genes. Our findings suggest that it is possible to explain the greater concordance in

smoking for MZ pairs compared with DZ pairs at waves 2–4 without reference to unmeasured genetic factors. Monozygotic pairs may be more alike in their smoking for the simple reason that

their friends are more alike in their smoking. Two outstanding issues remain: what is the source of greater concordance for smoking in MZ pairs at wave 1; and what is the source of greater

concordance for the smoking status of the friends for MZ pairs at all waves. Regarding the first issue, although the pattern of results could suggest genetic factors influencing smoking

‘turn-on’ during adolescence and ‘turn-off’ during young adulthood, it may also suggest that there is unmeasured confounding due to greater shared environment for MZ pairs while living

together. For the second issue, it is possible that the greater social contact or connectedness between MZ twins than DZ twins (Penninkilampi-Kerola et al, 2005; Rende et al, 2005) simply

leads to twins sharing more friends. However, as the literature based on the CTM provide some evidence that the choice of friends (Baker and Daniels, 1990; Iervolino et al, 2002) and

exposure to friends who smoke (Cleveland et al, 2005) are influenced by genetic factors, it is also possible to suggest that the influence of friends on smoking behaviour is, at root,

genetic. From this position and assuming that the EEA is correct, our findings could suggest that genes influence the smoking behaviours of adolescents and young adults indirectly by

influencing friendship selection. One motivation for seeking genes influencing smoking behaviour is that their discovery could provide a target for pharmaceutical interventions, by either

blocking or enhancing the action of the proteins encoded by the genes (Tyndale, 2003). However, a gene that modifies smoking indirectly by influencing the selection of friends would be a

less likely target for pharmaceutical interventions. If genetic explanations of smoking are to be made, research needs to distinguish the contribution of direct and indirect genetic effects,

as this will determine whether searching for specific genes associated with smoking is likely to be fruitful. If genetic effects on smoking mainly act through environmental mechanisms as is

suggested by our results, then social interventions may be the most effective means at reducing smoking. Although this study has a number of strengths, including its longitudinal nature and

assessing friends' smoking status at each survey wave, several limitations need to be kept in mind. First, there was attrition from waves 1 to 4. Smokers were less likely to

participate in the study at later waves than non-smokers, as were DZ twins. This could lead to a false association between zygosity and individual smoking status, with the progressive

concentration with each wave expected to produce an increasingly strong association between zygosity and smoking. However, this was not observed. Second, we studied current smoking status at

each wave rather than studying the status of ever having been a current or regular smoker or ever smoking, as has been usual in the behavioural genetics smoking literature. We adopted this

strategy due to the young age of our sample at the first wave. The notion of an adolescent as a smoker is more ambiguous than it is among adults, with research suggesting that a non-trivial

proportion of older adolescents who describe themselves as a smoker refer to themselves as a ‘non-smoker’ 6 months later (Schofield et al, 1998). Finally, smoking was more common among our

DZ twins than MZ twins at all survey waves. Although this finding must be considered with caution due to differential retention in later waves, as discussed above, it may indicate a

violation of the EEA leading to inflated heritability estimates (Tishler and Carey, 2007). Although the veracity of this suggestion is being debated (Kaprio, 2007), increasing concern about

the appropriateness of the EEA for smoking led us to describe our heritability estimates as ‘naïve’. Recently, there has been a call for researchers studying twins to investigate how

environmental factors might mediate or influence the putative role of genes (Penninkilampi-Kerola et al, 2005). Our study has attempted to do this by using a novel analytic approach that

does not rely on the assumptions of the CTM to examine the influence of zygosity and peer smoking on the current smoking behaviours of adolescent twins as they grow to adulthood. Once

concordance for peer smoking was adjusted for, MZ pairs were no more likely to be concordant for smoking than DZ pairs in late adolescence and adulthood. Our results suggest that genetic

explanations do not need to be invoked to explain the greater concordance for smoking in MZ pairs. Although further research is needed to confirm our findings, we believe that they are in

line with results from genetically informative designs showing the importance of the social environment on smoking uptake (Rende et al, 2005; Slomkowski et al, 2005) and in moderating the

influence of genes (Dick et al, 2007). This growing body of work provides support for the suggestion that smoking prevention efforts may benefit more by targeting social influences than

attempting to identify genes associated with smoking (Merikangas, 2005). This public health approach should include well-funded mass media anti-tobacco advertising campaigns, restrictions on

smoking in public, increased prices for cigarettes and removal of all tobacco product advertising (Laugesen et al, 2000). Since the late 1980s, Australia has adopted many of these policies

and the prevalence of smoking among adolescents aged 12–17 years has fallen from 22% in 1984 to 9% in 2005 (White and Hayman, 2006). CHANGE HISTORY * _ 16 NOVEMBER 2011 This paper was

modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication _ REFERENCES * Baker LA, Daniels D (1990) Nonshared environmental influences

and personality differences in adult twins. _J Pers Soc Psychol_ 58: 103–110 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Boomsma DI, Koopmans JR, Van Doornen LJ, Orlebeke JF (1994) Genetic and social

influences on starting to smoke: a study of Dutch adolescent twins and their parents. _Addiction_ 89: 219–226 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Carmelli D, Swan G, Robinette D, Fabsitz R

(1992) Genetic influence on smoking: a study of male twins. _N Engl J Med_ 327: 829–833 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Chassin L, Presson CC, Pitts SC, Sherman SJ (2000) The natural history

of cigarette smoking from adolescence to adulthood in a midwestern community sample: multiple trajectories and their psychosocial correlates. _Health Psychol_ 19: 223–231 Article  CAS 

Google Scholar  * Cleveland HH, Wiebe RP, Rowe DC (2005) Sources of exposure to smoking and drinking friends among adolescents: a behavioral-genetic evaluation. _J Genet Psychol_ 166:

153–169 PubMed  Google Scholar  * Conger RD (2005) Sibling effects on smoking in adolescence: evidence for social influence from a genetically informative design: comment on Slomkowski _et

al_, 2005. _Addiction_ 100: 441–442; discussion 443–444 Article  Google Scholar  * Conrad KM, Flay BR, Hill D (1992) Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. _Br J Addict_

87: 1711–1724 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Dick DM, Pagan JL, Viken R, Purcell S, Kaprio J, Pulkkinen L, Rose RJ (2007) Changing environmental influences on substance use across

development. _Twin Res Hum Genet_ 10: 315–326 Article  Google Scholar  * Distefan JM, Gilpin EA, Choi WS, Pierce JP (1998) Parental influences predict adolescent smoking in the United

States, 1989–1993. _J Adolesc Health_ 22: 466–474 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Engels RC, Knibbe RA, de Vries H, Drop MJ, van Breukelen GJ (1999) Influences of parental and best

friends' smoking and drinking on adolescent use: a longitudinal study. _J Appl Soc Psychol_ 29: 337–361 Article  Google Scholar  * Ezzati M, Lopez AD (2004) Regional, disease specific

patterns of smoking-attributable mortality in 2000. _Tob Control_ 13: 388–395 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Flay BR, Hu FB, Richardson J (1998) Psychosocial predictors of different stages

of cigarette smoking among high school students. _Prev Med_ 27: A9–A18 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Flay BR, Hu FB, Siddiqui O, Day E, Hedeker D, Petraitis J, Richardson J, Sussman S

(1994) Differential influence of parental smoking and friends' smoking on adolescent initiation and escalation of smoking. _J Health Soc Behav_ 35: 248–265 Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * Han C, McGue MK, Iacono WG (1999) Lifetime tobacco, alcohol and other substance use in adolescent Minnesota twins: univariate and multivariate behavioral genetic analyses. _Addiction_

94: 981–993 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Heath AC, Cates R, Martin NG, Meyer J, Hewitt JK, Neale MC, Eaves LJ (1993) Genetic contribution to risk of smoking initiation: comparisons across

birth cohorts and across cultures. _J Subst Abuse_ 5: 221–246 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Heath AC, Kirk KM, Meyer JM, Martin NG (1999) Genetic and social determinants of initiation and

age at onset of smoking in Australian twins. _Behav Genet_ 29: 395–407 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Heath AC, Martin NG (1993) Genetic models for the natural history of smoking: evidence

for a genetic influence on smoking persistence. _Addict Behav_ 18: 19–34 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hopfer CJ, Crowley TJ, Hewitt JK (2003) Review of twin and adoption studies of

adolescent substance use. _J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry_ 42: 710–719 Article  Google Scholar  * Hopper JL, White VM, Macaskill GT, Hill DJ, Clifford CA (1992) Alcohol use, smoking

habits and the Adult Eysenck Personality Questionnaire in adolescent Australian twins. _Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma)_ 41: 311–324 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Iervolino AC, Pike A,

Manke B, Reiss D, Hetherington EM, Plomin R (2002) Genetic and environmental influences in adolescent peer socialization: evidence from two genetically sensitive designs. _Child Dev_ 73:

162–174 Article  Google Scholar  * Kaprio J (2007) Differences in smoking habits of MZ and DZ twins: a commentary on Tishler and Carey. _Twin Res Hum Genet_ 10: 718–720 Article  Google

Scholar  * Kendler KS, Gardner Jr CO (1998) Twin studies of adult psychiatric and substance dependence disorders: are they biased by differences in the environmental experiences of

monozygotic and dizygotic twins in childhood and adolescence? _Psychol Med_ 28: 625–633 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Koopmans JR, Slutske WS, Heath AC, Neale MC, Boomsma DI (1999) The

genetics of smoking initiation and quantity smoked in Dutch adolescent and young adult twins. _Behav Genet_ 29: 383–393 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Laugesen M, Scollo M, Sweanor D,

Shiffman S, Gitchell J, Barnsley K, Jacobs M, Giovino GA, Glantz SA, Daynard RA, Connolly GN, Difranza JR (2000) World's best practice in tobacco control. _Tob Control_ 9: 228–236

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Leatherdale ST, McDonald PW, Cameron R, Brown KS (2005) A multilevel analysis examining the relationship between social influences for smoking and smoking

onset. _Am J Health Behav_ 29: 520–530 Article  Google Scholar  * Li MD, Cheng R, Ma JZ, Swan GE (2003) A meta-analysis of estimated genetic and environmental effects on smoking behavior in

male and female adult twins. _Addiction_ 98: 23–31 Article  Google Scholar  * Loehlin JC (1992) _Genes and Environment in Personality Development_. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Google

Scholar  * Madden PA, Heath AC, Pedersen NL, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo MJ, Martin NG (1999) The genetics of smoking persistence in men and women: a multicultural study. _Behav Genet_ 29: 423–431

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Madden PA, Pedersen NL, Kaprio J, Koskenvuo MJ, Martin NG (2004) The epidemiology and genetics of smoking initiation and persistence: crosscultural

comparisons of twin study results. _Twin Res_ 7: 82–97 Article  Google Scholar  * Maes HH, Neale MC, Kendler KS, Martin NG, Heath AC, Eaves LJ (2006) Genetic and cultural transmission of

smoking initiation: an extended twin kinship model. _Behav Genet_ 36: 795–808 Article  Google Scholar  * McGue M, Elkins I, Iacono WG (2000) Genetic and environmental influences on

adolescent substance use and abuse. _Am J Med Genet_ 96: 671–677 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Merikangas KR (2005) The significance of social connectedness: comment on Slomkowski _et al_,

2005. _Addiction_ 100: 442–443; discussion 443–444 Article  Google Scholar  * Mulder HA, Bijma P, Hill WG (2007) Prediction of breeding values and selection responses with genetic

heterogeneity of environmental variance. _Genetics_ 175: 1895–1910 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Penninkilampi-Kerola V, Kaprio J, Moilanen I, Rose RJ (2005) Co-twin dependence modifies

heritability of abstinence and alcohol use: a population-based study of Finnish twins. _Twin Res Hum Genet_ 8: 232–244 Article  Google Scholar  * Pergadia ML, Heath AC, Agrawal A, Bucholz

KK, Martin NG, Madden PA (2006) The implications of simultaneous smoking initiation for inferences about the genetics of smoking behavior from twin data. _Behav Genet_ 36: 567–576 Article 

Google Scholar  * Prescott CA, Madden PA, Stallings MC (2006) Challenges in genetic studies of the etiology of substance use and substance use disorders: introduction to the special issue.

_Behav Genet_ 36: 473–482 Article  Google Scholar  * Rende R, Slomkowski C, Lloyd-Richardson E, Niaura R (2005) Sibling effects on substance use in adolescence: social contagion and genetic

relatedness. _J Fam Psychol_ 19: 611–618 Article  Google Scholar  * Rhee SH, Hewitt JK, Young SE, Corley RP, Crowley TJ, Stallings MC (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on substance

initiation, use, and problem use in adolescents. _Arch Gen Psychiatry_ 60: 1256–1264 Article  Google Scholar  * Schofield PE, Borland R, Hill DJ, Pattison PE, Hibbert ME (1998) Instability

in smoking patterns among school leavers in Victoria, Australia. _Tob Control_ 7: 149–155 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Slomkowski C, Rende R, Novak S, Lloyd-Richardson E, Niaura R (2005)

Sibling effects on smoking in adolescence: evidence for social influence from a genetically informative design. _Addiction_ 100: 430–438 Article  Google Scholar  * Stallings MC, Hewitt JK,

Beresford T, Heath AC, Eaves LJ (1999) A twin study of drinking and smoking onset and latencies from first use to regular use. _Behav Genet_ 29: 409–421 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  *

StataCorp (2003) _Stata Statistical Software: Release 8.2_. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation * StataCorp (2006) _Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0_. College Station, TX: Stata

Corporation * Sullivan PF, Kendler KS (1999) The genetic epidemiology of smoking. _Nicotine Tob Res_ 1 (Suppl 2): S51–S57 Article  Google Scholar  * Tishler PV, Carey VJ (2007) Can

comparison of MZ- and DZ-twin concordance rates be used invariably to estimate heritability? _Twin Res Hum Genet_ 10: 712–717 Article  Google Scholar  * Tyas SL, Pederson LL (1998)

Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. _Tob Control_ 7: 409–420 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tyndale RF (2003) Genetics of alcohol and

tobacco use in humans. _Ann Med_ 35: 94–121 Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * White V, Hayman J (2006) _Smoking Behaviours of Australian Secondary Students in 2005_ Australian Government

Department of Health and Ageing: Canberra. Available from http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/mono59 * White VM, Hopper JL, Wearing AJ, Hill

DJ (2003) The role of genes in tobacco smoking during adolescence and young adulthood: a multivariate behaviour genetic investigation. _Addiction_ 98: 1087–1100 Article  Google Scholar 

Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (Grant no. 262604) and from the Victorian Health

Promotion Foundation. Professor John Hopper is an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellow. The authors are grateful to the Australian Twin Registry for facilitating access to twins through

their parents at recruitment and directly at follow-up. Particular thanks go to the twins. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * The Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The

Cancer Council Victoria, Carlton, 3053, Victoria, Australia V M White & B Webster * The Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, School of Population

Health, The University of Melbourne, 3010, Victoria, Australia G B Byrnes & J L Hopper Authors * V M White View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google

Scholar * G B Byrnes View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * B Webster View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed 

Google Scholar * J L Hopper View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to V M White. APPENDIX APPENDIX We

demonstrate below that the joint distribution of smoking (or other binary features) within a pair of twins is equivalently captured by the marginal probability of smoking, together with the

probability that the pair are concordant. We also provide further details on the combined regression model we used to estimate the odds ratios of marginal smoking and concordance with

respect to various predictors. As the twins within a pair are assumed to be exchangeable, the joint distribution of a pair is described by the probabilities that both, one or none of the

twins in the pair smoke. We denote these by _p_2, _p_1 and _p_0=1−_p_2−_p_1, respectively. Now consider the marginal probability _p_m that a twin smokes, which is the probability that a twin

chosen at random from the population is a smoker. This random draw can be conducted by first choosing a pair, and then selecting one of the twins in the pair at random. It is easy to see

that _p_m=_p_2+0.5_p_1. Similarly, the probability that a pair of twins is concordant is just _p_c=_p_0+_p_2=1−_p_1. This relationship can be inverted to yield _p_2=_p_m+0.5(_p_c−1) and

_p_1=1−_p_c, establishing that they are equivalent representations. It follows that if we have a model for _p_m and another for _p_c, then we have a model for the observed joint

distribution. We chose to use logistic models for both _p_m and _p_c largely to avoid confusion with the often-assumed probit model, but any generalised linear model for a binary outcome

would suffice. The remaining problem is to disentangle the effect of the marginal probability of smoking from the probability of concordance. Suppose that each twin made an independent

decision to smoke, with probability _p_. Then _p_2=_p_2 and _p_1=2_p_(1−_p_), so that _p_c=1−2_p_+2_p_2. This increases to 1 as _p_ approaches either 0 or 1, as would be expected. To

compensate for this, we write the generalised linear models in the form Here _g_m and _g_c are the link functions for the marginal and concordance models, whereas _X_m and _X_c are the

corresponding covariates. Hence, in the null model where _β_c=0, the probability of concordance is as it would be if the smoking status of twins was independent. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS From

twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license,

visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE White, V., Byrnes, G., Webster, B. _et al._ Does smoking among friends

explain apparent genetic effects on current smoking in adolescence and young adulthood?. _Br J Cancer_ 98, 1475–1481 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604250 Download citation *

Received: 24 May 2007 * Revised: 16 January 2008 * Accepted: 16 January 2008 * Published: 04 March 2008 * Issue Date: 22 April 2008 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604250 SHARE THIS

ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * smoking * adolescence * young adults * twins * longitudinal