Parent substance use was self-reported usually by the mother and entails the average number Selleckchem Ribociclib of alcoholic drinks consumed per week. Age, gender (boy: x = 1; girl: x = 2) and OC use (no: x = 0; yes: x = 1) were assessed using a demographics self-report questionnaire. Height and weight were measured prior to the test session to calculate BMI. Time of test session was coded noon (x = 1) or late afternoon (x = 2). First, a manipulation check was performed by way
of repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) in the entire sample in order to confirm that the stressful tasks did induce an increase in HR and PS as compared to the Rest period. Age and gender were entered into all models as covariates. Prior to the main analysis additional covariates were examined and added to the main analysis if they correlated significantly with both independent and dependent variables. To investigate HR during the stress procedure, a 3 × 3 × 3 RM-ANOVA was performed with period (Rest,
Task, Recovery) as the within-subjects factor and gNDW (Low, Medium, High Quantity) and gFTU (Non-smokers, Low, High Frequency Smokers) as between-subjects factors. Interactions between period and the between-subjects find more variables as well as between period and the covariates were examined. Simple contrasts were performed in order to explore between-group differences. Univariate ANOVAs of the change score in HR between Rest and Task periods were performed when interaction effects were present. An identical analysis was performed with PS as the dependent variable measured across the three periods. In all analyses, Greenhouse–Geisser statistics are reported when necessary to correct departures from sphericity. For the entire sample, the tasks produced physiological stress, as indicated by a significant within-groups effect of period (F(1.32,357.37) = 589.66, p < .001). Simple contrasts showed that average HR during the Task was significantly higher than during Rest (F(1,271) = 412.99, p < .001). PS also differed across the three periods (F(1.51,414.42) = 403.01, p < .001), with simple contrasts again showing PS to be higher
during the Task as compared to Rest (F(1,274) = 293.39, whatever p < .001). Descriptives of, and correlations between, dependent, independent and potential covariates are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Age and gender were controlled in all models. No other variables correlated with both dependent and independent variables, and therefore were not included as covariates in the models. PS and HR showed a small, significant positive correlation, specifically during Task (R = .13, p < .05) and Recovery (R = .12, p < .05), additionally PS Rest with HR Task (R = .13, p < .05) and HR Recovery (R = .16, p < .01). The HR response measure was not significantly correlated with the PS response measure. A significant between-subjects effect was evident for gNDW (F(2,244) = 6.12, p < .01).