Tobacco Documents Online

-1- 1. INTKODUCTZON This report presents a review of that research undertaken at B-A.T. Group Research &~velopment Centre which has involved the application of, broadly defined, psycholoEical theory and procedures in attempts to more fully understand the interaction between smoking and the smoker, his motlvation, and product preference behaviour. In anticipation of the development of several "psychological" research progra~nes, the author was appointed consultant psycholo$ist to Group R. & D. Centre in January 1974, and has advised on, and parClcipated in, most of the actLvities which form the material of this report. Insofar as it is possible to survey impartially both the tangfblr and less obvious products of this area of research, it is the present intention to critically examine the development and products of these endeavours to form a basis from whlch the value of any future developments may be assessed. For the purpose of this report, research activities have been Srouped under five header studies of individual differences; psychomotor and performance studies; product perception studies; product preference research; and electroancephaloL-raphic (KEG) research. These somewhat arbitrary divisions do not necessarily conform to the perceived structure of zesearchwithin Group E. & D. Centre, nor are the operational boundaries so clear cut; but for ease of compilation and presentation such a division is pragmatic and, hopefully, clear. The five subject heads refer to research activities in various stakes of evolutionwltb differinS developmental histories. Whether or not the follovins assumptions accurately reflect actual intentions BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-2- for these progran~es, it is necessary for the purposes of this report to define their perceived status at the time of writing. Thus it is assumed cha: both the product preference and EEG researches are continuing and tha: the product perception and psychomotor and performance scudles are being held in abeyance. As an independent activity personality studies are assumed to have been halted, although an implicit relevance attaches to the employment of personality questionnaires in the continuing EEG s cudies. Following a brief review of these researches, this report attempts to identify and assess Che potential future development of psychological studies in smoking behaviour 8c Group R. & D. Centre, and "~ncludas an analysis of both the Seneral and ~ocal limitations which can be anticipated, concluding with a smmary of racouaendations. It is not possible to under~ake such an assessment without regard to the organizational structure and environment in which the work has been, or will be, carried ouc. The couments relating Co this wider analysis may be found provocative; this is intentional and reflects • privilege assumed by the author who nevertheless readily acknowledges the 14m;cations attaching to his particular perspective. 2. THE KESEAICH REVIEW 2.1 Studies of Zndividual Diffarencms Within the raamarch pro~rsmm designed to elucidate the nature of the interaction between smoking and the smoker, a variety of seZf- report instruments have bean administered to variou~ samples of subjects participating in the e~perimants. These questionnaires divide into two broad classes: Chose, ~ike the McKennell (1) and the Russell (2) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-3- instruments, which deal speclfic•llyw~th smokinK behav~our, end those, like the Eysenck Personality Inventory (3) and the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (&), ~d~ich are Ken•tel inscrtw~nts for assessinK fundamental personality traits and not re,stinK to specific behaviouzs such as smoking. Data from both classes of questiounalre has been acquired at several points in time, depending upon the specific requirements of the study in hand. ~ilst the smoking-specific approaches have found particular application in the smokinK preference research, the personelit7 questionnaires have been applied exclusively in the smokinK motivation proBranne. Because they have had • sr~ater tn£1uence on the product preference investisations, discussion of the smokinFspe~ific questionnaires will be contsinedwLthin that late= section. With reKard to the swokinKmotiv•tlon proirn, •ncoureKedb~ the findings of others (5) that smokers and non-smokers have been distinguished in teras of personality structure as revealed by self-report, it was decided to incorporate some assessment of personality differences between subjects in an attempt to establish the existence of trait structures statistically associated wlth smoking behaviour. Following his comprehensive review o£ the literature, Smith (6) concluded that 8~kers are more extraverted than non-smokers. Xndeed, twenty-t~o of the twanty-f£ve analyses revi~ed showed swok~rs to be sisnificantly more axt~raverted than non-smokers and no study revi~ed reported the oppos£te flndins. Faith in the valldity of this conclusion wss strqthened by the observation that, overall, widely differing instruments had been employed in the twenty-five studies cited and yet a virtual uniformity of result emerged. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c..m

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-4- Of the several personality questionnaires available which claim Co measure extraverslon, those derived by Eysenck (3) and by Cattei1 and Eber (4) were selected for evaluation m~d subsequent application. The EPI provides a subject datum on each of two d~nsions o£ personality, whereas the 18PFQ locates a subject on sixteen independent dimensions from which data his extraverslon "score" can be derived. The application of these instruments has not, however, been restricted to a consideration o£ the extraversion trait. The £irst major application of these questionnaires was contained in a series 0£ experiments entitled "The Interaction of Smoke and the Smoker" (7), the results of which were subsequently reported (8, 9). For this experiment, thirty male and thirty female subjects were recruited and each completed the EPI (Form A) and the 16 PFQ (Form A). Half of each sex group vats smokers and half were non-smokers. Of the t~eenty personality factors investigated, several reliably diatinsuished between men and women but none differentiated smokers gram non-smokers when single factor comparative analyses were undertaken. Subsequent analyses (9), incorporating data on a £urther twenty-~hree subjects, and usinE a multivariate analysis procedure, revealed that ic was possible to correctly assign 96Z o£ male smokers in the sample to the "smoker,' category and 8IX of the male non-smokers to the "non-mnoker" category. Using the same factors in the regression equation for females met with less success and it yes concluded that this evidenced a sexually di££erentiated motivation dynamic £n respect of amekinK behav£our. Hare recently, the 16 PFQ profiles of 229 subjects have been subjected to a cluster analysis to yield eight clusters of subjects. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢,..m

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE

-5- The sample included male and female smokers, ex-smokers, and non-smokers and the cluster sizes ranged from 20 co 39, althoush mnoking type was differentially distributed amongst the clusters. For exmuple, cluster A (N = 29) contained no female smokers, no female non-smokers and only two female ex-smokers; siJnilarly cluster 7 (N - 26) contained only one female subject, an ex-smoker. In contrast, cluster 2 (I~ = 20) conea£ned only five males, of whom 3 were smokers, and 2 non-smokers. Of the 39 subjects found in cluster $, only four were £mnale, one o£ whom was a smoker. The significance of smoking type and •ex distributions be~een clusters has not been assessed, nor has the cohesion of cluster meubersh£p been assessed. C1marly it ~r~11 be necessary to establish" ~he independence of the smok£ng type factor in relat£on to sex d£fferences before it can be concluded that this analys£s is not merely demonstrating the previously noted differentiation of sex by pereonaliey trait measurlment. It vould seem appropr£ane that some further analysis of the ava£1able data be connnissloned. This would involve the application of discrlmlnant analysis Co the cluster populations to assess the significance of smoking type and sex d£scribuclons ~r£ch£n and between clusters. Also, should the opporcun£zy arise. • future study aimed ac correlati~ the personal£cy cluscet profiles o£ smokers ~'ithin Ohm "s~oklng behaviour" cluster profiles yielded by the HcF~nnall approach, using a larger, external smnple would offer an inCeresclng insight into the relationships between smoking # behaviour, smokins t~/pology, and personality. Such • synthesis of the personality trait and smoking type approaches m~ght be ach£eved in the followin~ way. At the time o£ collection of Mclf~unell questionnaire data, respondGnts are additionally required Co complete one form of BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

INDEX HAS INDICATED GAP IN BATES RANGE HERE