Tobacco Documents Online

THE lqOl(3:H(; BEHKVZOUR OF HOHEH XEI, O~ BO. ~. 1410 HSt'XlC'I'J~ 12.11.1976 A£JTROK: LE. 21soL-nt:crn ZSSOYJ) BY: D.J. Wood FRD.TECT JOB !;0. 1.3. O1.08 DZSTRZ)UTZON: Dr. S.J. Green Dr. Z.W. RuShes Dr. L&. Sanford R.14. Gibb, Esq. ILS. Wade, Ksq. LO. Bicho:L18, Esq. ltez~ H. Sot:t:o=f Dr. Y. Seebofer A.J. Nzuszynsk~, Zsq. D~. ¢.J.P. de Siqumira Dr. D.G. Filtmz L£b~az7 Copy Bo. 1, 2, 3, 4, $ tO t1'1 6 " " 7, 8 08 I| 9 " " 10, 11, 12 " " 13, 14 " " 15 " " 16 " " 17 " " 18 " " 19 n " 20, 21 COPT NO. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢..m

! BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION C (..2"

~I~146J Group ~tsetrch & Developumt Ctutza, Britlsh--~ic~n Tobacco Co. Ltd., ~OH. 12th November, 1976 rex.me mLvzm . 0r,, (il~porC lie. ILD.1410 Kestnr£cted) SW~ x~ nany cmmr:ies the numbe:s o£ £emala sneers are increasi=s, ofcem ac a £aster =ate ~ a=a ~h8 mJmbm=s of msle smokers. This f&cc, and the in~ress~ number of brazes 8~mad s: £mnale tmokers, has prompted : :eviev of the e~vlcle~:e Chat the ~V~nK bahsviour (i.e. n~sbec o£ cigazetces smoked, the ray r,J~y &re smoked etc.) of fmnale smoi~rs is d~E£e=ent £:om that of umle smo]~zrs. Zt; ~s co~clu4ed Chat there aze a numbem o~ dLf£emences and, eomeuhst suzpc£siJxgly, ch~t ~here ks some evi4ence chat vommn aze mo:e hif, hly motivated Co smoke Chart men tassel £i~l At i~rde: Co quit 8mokLu8. The undeclyins =:eussons behind these d~£e:ances a:a dlscusseKi, as a=e some LmplicaC£ons of these conclusions on pcoducC design. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m

© i BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-2- 1. IKI3mDUCT I0~_ Xn man7 count=ies the numbers of femala smokers are increasing, o£te~ =t a lurer =ate cban awe ~Am mmbe=s of male smokers. Yo= exampla, in the U.E. the pe=centaBe of fmsa2e mnoker8 in the younse= rake ~roups Lucreased ~n the p~r£od 1961-1973 while the petcs=tap of male smokers de~ressed, as the fo1£mrlnK ££Sures £~om Todd (1) 8hou:- TABL~ 1 ell, l~U~~s oF SNOXZRS oy w~nlnmD " cz s rr srz X Smokers i | ,ll J~se J~m 1961 1973 1961 1973 16-19 61 49 64 20-24 67 62 56 49 52 Roweye:, gross scatist£cs such as those quoted LuTable 1 sometimes cen~=aal interestin$ trends and £c is ~orr.h nocinS that, for both men and in ~h8 U.L, there £s some evtdenca thac smokin4~ ~s becom/~s usocimted with the lover moc/~l classes. XKnor~ug soc/~tl class VI (~noccup~md) chart ~s a Cemd~c7 £o~ the Z o£ male 8mokar8 co increase over rJ~e soc£al classes Z Co V. ~oc £am~les rJ~e L~ends are d££fecent; only 26X o~ socLal clus E a=e ssmke=8 buC about 45Z of fmules ;,, r.he ocher causes are smoke~8. These trends are shogn in Table 2 u~Lch is also ~ £=cmTodd (1). ~mmr BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

J m ¢,..rl P'o BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-3- TABLE 2 ss' KeK£sr:ar General's 5oc~al Class l~ofess~l occupst£o~s Znt~J~te occupations Skilled occup•C£ons Paxcly skillod occup•E£ams V Ons~lled occup•t£ons UnoccupLed All Iocf.•l c1•sses Nan Sk~an i Jl 1961 1973 1961 1973 (Z) (:) (=) (Z) 53 39 46 26 59 &2 &4 &2 59 50 &7 47 6o 56 4g 46 62 63 43 47 40 34 24 26 59 50 43 44 SLa~Iaz t:emds in the numbers of -ale and female smokers ba~e also bee= reported in the U.S.A. and it has been stated that, over the peziod 1955-1969, vbile the total number of smokezs had ~cmm, al1 of the pmrch had occux=ed ~ the ambers of fmIe smokars. 232e:e bad •cOolly been • very sZov decl~e J~ Ub~ number of male lasts oyez rJ~s period. Theme ~reDds mr8 i11u~trated in 7i&~re 1, reproduced from a r~ore by EAs~ Chemical Froduccs, Z=c. (2). Pz'esumably amsocJ~te6 with this8 trends the:e have been, 4- racenl: yurS, am ~crusiDs Dumber of c~Z~ctttt brands vtzLr~ luwe been spec~fLcally aimed at female smokies*. An example is C&t~0 (~Lr~d Tobacco Co. South, South LL~:ic~) and at:her brands v~L:b have bee~ aimed at fmle omok~:s i~=lu6e CBJJ~ (Sousa Cz~z, B:asil), ~D( (~.A.T, Genuuzy) and DU H&D~I~R ~GS (t.J. ~ rrs~ce), h mo8~ rece~t example kamm h ~be of I)A.T.SY in Dmmark by Skan4/x~v£sk ~obmkakampaSni. Zn the U.S.A. clmre , e u, ,, * Z= the fo11~ rs~£ev of braa&s •Lmed st female mashers the ~oz~stion h~s bee= ob~sJ:ed, in r~e ~-Ln, from '~dar~etLa$ Hews" tha month17 jo~z~sl produced by Marir.mCtJ~ Dmpartmm~t:, ~Lllba~. Z.Lkenrlse terns=ks attributed to re•tubers of elm U.S.A. cobscco t4~lLu~Cry have be4m ob~sJ~ed f=om the m~ Ir~Duz'cI. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION r',,o

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION r~ r~

., , . ,. ° ~A FIG. I F.~ 14.10 RE~'RIC'~D U,5.A. - NUMBER5 OF 3HOKER,5 1955- 1969 MILLION PEOPLE 5O- 40- 3O- 2O, I0 .-0 'lr0"rx.k .... ,., ..... -o"" (~mipo o el*~'IP~o° MEN c. - c) WOMEN o.~o~O°°°°O ~ ~ IB IB 0 IBO 51DB IB 'S6 'Sll °IL> "IS2 °64. %6 *&B "10 *'/?. "14. YEJ41~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ~m r',o

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-4- have been many ~Zas (o.K. FI,LT~, Ead=ra, Dawn. lye*. Silva Thins, V£rSLu~ 514.,,- and Max) aZr~oush not &11 of the brands have sur,~-ived their laun~. Zn add£t~oa r~re are br~,,~s ~ere the marke~inl image has bean Ziven some fmaalo eZmnants, e.g. ~I/qD& (B.A.T)8neluoc) and Lou~ Jo~s (American Tobacco Co. it4.). The a4ve:tisiJ~ copy for the 1at:e: brand is spac~811y alu~d av smokers of boeh seines. The=e has 818o bean • ~8mpa~n by Dutch cigmr mmz~acture:s to persuade mn to smo~ c£g~ts. Generally speaking brands aimed a: fmnale smoiunrs have rJnded to have ce:1:ain chazacter~s~ics in common, e.S- K~D4 had to mee~ carta;- des£Kn pre=qqu£si:es, namely a light r~s:Ln~ 1or u~cot~e ciKa=a:ee vith a raM11 circun~erence (23-25 urn). Advert£sLu~ tin8 :~:ed at young women in the 20-28 age group: at the time of K]~'s launch ;- Germany $1Z of a11 feaaLe smokers wa:e unde: 35. C£sarec:es aimed s~ w~mn have ~ende~ ~o be longer as well as sl/m~r chart more t=adi~io~sl brands and £: £s no~m~orr.hy rJ~ the 120 :m 1ong sei~ant of 1].5. :m~r~e: ~clu4es some brands a~n~d 8pe~ificaIl? ~=houKh de~a£1ed t~ctrp:eCaC£on o£ urbViq da~:a is no: possible th~s repc~ i~ seems uorr.h munl:~.~ 1:hal: the Ip:est majorLey of ~ome= clea=ly 4o ~pt 8mo~t the b=ands a/mad spec4~£cslly :~ them as ~:e £ollov~g sJles ~LKures for these ~tla~vely t~n11 est~bl£sbed tmamds suggest: (3). Of r.ou:sa, if ~m ~lr~ ~ga~e~tes T~temded for ~, :ban ~be d~spm:£:y £s evan 8=eu~ve: than is suggested by t~e data g£van in Table 3. There ~s also • ~elate4 c~Ka~tte Adam, a~md at male smokers. ~r~ r~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

~pl~r'~,, ¢,..rl BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

muuc zmAz s .,SD ,saOzns Karimt Share Brand 1972 1973 1974 (Z) (Z) (Z) F,~ (Germany) 0.9 1.1 1.3 8£1va Thins (U.S.A.) 0.9 0.8 0.8. ]~ve (O.S.&.) 0.3 0.3 0.3 Note: Only brands a~ned spec~f£cally at women have been ~cludeA 4~ Table 3 and 4a~a for some couat=£es is not aTa£1able " e.s. Soul~.b Afr£ca. T. tt~'l~J of brands which are not Irpec:~:Lcally ~ at Imme~ the £0110vinK statemeut about ~omen's reaction to =or concepts has been at~buted to J. BoyLe, Group Vice Frestdent 0£ Fbilip Hoz~r£8. 'The i~Lies have led every majoT e£ga=ette creed 4~ the past 15 7eazs. Our studies 8hov that they vere rJ~e £irst r~ eab~&ce king site ci88rettes, mentbol, charcoal and recessed filters". Tt~ :arkeCinK of dLiJ.m~rent brands for ~-Le and femaZe smokers is supported by studies of male and £emale mnoha~8 from vhLch it has been coucluded that there -~e • number o£ d£££erences in smok-~Uli hab£ts beer•an the sexes. Hot unexpectedly those "~volved in rJ~se studies have related chase dJJJ~fe~enau t:o • u~le v~io~v of p~cbolol~ul, peychoaz~ly££cal and I~emtt:i(: ¢b•r•cter£sci~J and some of r.hese r~eo=ies v~11 be :ev~evexl L: late: 8ectLon8 o~ r.b~Ls report. Since 1972 most o£ eha ~ bebumiomral eL~ud£es "car:~ed out at Group L & D. Cen:re bsve ~olved pameZs o~ equal numbers of male and BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢.,.m ¢,..r'!

\ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION / OO

-6- female smokers. ~tb~f~ rJ~ :es~lts £:om each exper~nent a:8, st:ictly 8ptL~4, only applictble to the psnsl used, ~evetthelas: in eve~ expe~iuum: same' 4~fersnces l~ve been noted in smok~u8 beh~viour be~=~ the sexes. Zt is therdore c~usidered app:opr~ate to :8v4ev the evi~leace that ~I~ smok~K behavLour of fI~sla mokmr8 is d~.~fezsmt £:om r~u~t of halt For this taller the follo~J~ sources of i~foz~atLon have been used: =epo~ts published ~th/~ the B.&.T Group, published pspe=s in the litez&cu=t and vaz~us unpublbhad erudite at Group i. & D. C4mttt. Th:oushout tb~s tev£sv 4t may be assumed that, unless specificslly St:t"a, the 8ur~o: is u~mrare of any evidence ~ ~ Qonttary direction to that quote~ in support of the va:ious hypothsjes be4~s cousiKe:ed. the othez han~, in the ~terests of brevity, s~ulies ~ch t~ve i~concl~s£ve :es~lts have, ~n the mien, not been quoted. 2. DXSCUSS~ , as ~e discussion is o=~an~sed as follovs: 2.1 Gen~z~l Cons~4e:at£ons 2.2 S:o~a# Behav~ou: 2.3 Product l~e~e~ance Sr~4ies 2.4 Qu:LctL~ ~b£ts 2.1 Gene=al Cons£derat£ons 4~£e= from vo~n in a m~b~r of ~sys i~sclud:1.nS bLocbea:i.ca3., physiolos£caZ, psycJu:!oSlcal, mo~pholoK£cal, persona/, social and cul~tral chs=acta:istics, the £uadsman~sl distinctio~ be~K, of cou:sa, lanet£c and it is possible th~t d3~erences in &11 of these d~m~slm~s v~1I •ffect s:ol~ beha~i~u~. ]For exJmpZe it has been cXais~d (4) that BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m r,x.#

° taan~a'~~. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m

vomen metabol£se nicotine In • d~farent ~ay to men, and ~Ls b£ochemi~tl d~f~rence may be of crucial tmport~ace in det~ 8mok£n8 beh~v£our. Lik85~ee there ~re am differ~ss tJa braiJa activity (am measured by ele~troencephaloKraphte tmebn£qu~s) whicJa my be related to retaking beh~iour (5). Norpbolos£~81 ~acter£st£c8 u~Kht also be impotent a.B. many dzuss are e~£ect£ve on • unit we£Kht basis. The d~£erences in ~ae o~har djmansLons ~ro hszd~r to maasuze objectlvel~, and even harder to z~n~ste to smok£ng behsvlour. Thus, psy~holoKical d:l.f£e.x'~ces kt'ween ~ ~ ~ have been gt~dled by numerous workers us~aK r~b8 questlonna~e approach msd cli££erences in I1 out o£ the 16 ~actors in the 16 Persona~£ty Factor Qu~sti~anaire o~ Cat~eI1 (6) have been dem0nstraced u bed~ s£Kn~cant at • level of p • .001. It is rJaoush~ r~at some o£ Uaese d£~germa~e8 ~e c~astltutLon81 while otJaers art c~LL~J~81. The £ac~o~8 £or vl~Lch d~£e~ee8 were ~ound art 1Lst~d in Table A, but 8s expected rJaert is not • 8igni~£cant dJ~£er~nce £or ~s~o~ B (lnte£1i~ence). TABLE 4 nn~7~zs zx ~ ~uaLrr~ racToes (~). Fac~or~ (~dven~v.rouo) , (~mdar-.edaded) L (S~spLcious) (l~aSt.nacive) 0 Zn~eeu.re) Q1 CL~ree-'~ (Conc~ol:Le~L) (':e~e) Score k gomon 18.~9 23.1& 24.28 17.30 28.5O 25.&3 17.83 24.78 16.70 l&.~6 22.15 2~.Z7 21.93 20.$3 19.91 23.~3 20.13 17.61 23.54 22.78 22.2I 26.78 * D~sc:~pC£on applies to ~ve pole o£ ~8e~or: £or.a £ulle~ dese.r~pCion o~ tJ~tse £~r~s see r~e~n~t (6) BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m ¢..j"l O m m

r',o BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-8- Zn t~sc belu~£our ~s Lu~luencod by personAl£ty one ~ld expect cha~ the d~£erences noted by C~cteiI vould ~fecc varyLug aspects of behmv£our a~d Chece £s evidence tbac Ch~s is indeed £hm case. An example t~ken from studies •C Group K. & D. Caners £11ustr•~ss rJ~J dffftre~ce. 348 employees of B.A.T •t SouchsmpCon took p~rt Ms psychomotor cost, the Gibson SpLral Kase. The p~c£ormmnce of vomau (~roup average) 1ms Lnfer£or co chac of men, s~d ch~s £s almost co~Calnly the result of pe~moual£cy d£f£erenees b•Ctmen the sexes (7). 2.2 .,s~o. ~ nehsviour Kevle~s of Ohm. Z£cer•curo suKKesc Chat ~le chars are more light 8 and hsavy smokLcs mnoug man, w0mm tend co be class£££sd as amdi~ smokers (8). There have also been reporcs ~hac ~mian uho becmu heavy smokers yore somevhac unusual: they ~e "adveBCurc~s types v£ch m qumsc £oc pov~c and social racoKn~C£on" (9). &~oCh~c repocc cla£mad Co h~ve made the uamcpe~ced d£scovery of an increased frequency of mau~oCic C~a~Cs in mn smokers, ~rlch the su4~ssc£on Chat man smoke as • t~ib•l cusco~ ~eu ~ smoke •s • symptom of ~,,se~uricy (~0). This may be so buc £c £s ~orch poLnct~j out thaC ~om~n in 8,-~e=•1 m~e mo~e neuroc£c c~m men (6). Turning from t~tse psycholog£cal consLder•C~on8 co cba more specLf£c • cu of ss~k~8 motivation, • numbe~ o~ quuc~£ros have bee= devised in ~eee~c 7~s~s to measure vs~i~s aspects of msokLu~ mo~£vsCLo~, ~.e. Chose of Tomki~s (11), ~..~mm~ll (12, 13), ibsmm~11 (14) m~ Em~ (15). Usz,f~o~Cus~a.Cely some of Chase quuC~es brave c~L~ be m~pl4e~ to male smk~rs, but ~usse11, ~bosa quasCiouomkt is basic~lly • rmh o£ question8 £ram ~srLier questionnaires, kss rmporced d~£ecencms in BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION M

• ...°. . ..-.-_" . • • - ° ..al~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

smoking uotivatlon be~en tha sees. ib~se11'8 analyxLs lea4s 1:o r.he £d~:~£~t£mz of six factors. :epcesemt/:4 the folloving L'yl~8 of smog:- Facto: 1 st/sml~tian Factor 2 i:duIKent factor 3 psychosoc~aZ 7actor 4 sensorim=r~: Yacht $ ad4£ct£ve Yacto: 6 aur~mat4c Kusse11's quest~u~maJ.re has aXso been adnL/J~stezed to sa 100 smoke~s at the Grou~ E. & D. Centre 8rid d/~£erences in factor xco:es between rJ~e sexes vas as~L~ observed, quali~r~vely st~Llaz ~o those repmcted by Russell h/resell (Table 5 and F£gure 2). /qm 8ez d~f£e:ence for sedative smoking note~L ~ Zable $ hss a18o bea~ =eported bY Zkaz~l (15), us/~4 the Horn questionma/ze, while 7:£rJm (16) found r.i~t women we:e Imre l£kely than ~ to repo:t a nmDd to mira ;,, s£c~s~Jaua of b~sh a:om~sl, These :esulCs also suggest; that the smokacs aC Group K. & D. Centre rare above ~Terase in re:ms of rJ~ mocivar-iou scores recorded by Russell. TJJLE $ m0[z.G n r VL O, qn=S L ) =, (8=;--,Lst£on) (Zn4ulSen=) (Sensorim~:) V (kid£cl:£ve) (~,t~t£c) Mean Score Hales 7resales 1.14 1.13 . 1.61 1.81 0.67 0.9O 0.51 0.41 0.83 1,25 0.54 0.87 SlSnffi~n~t of Df~ffe=snee HoS, li,S. p = 0.03 H.S. p " 0.01 p " 0.0~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢.jr-t ¢..m

........_ itPA FIE. Z RD. 1410 II~STIRICTED . FOR MEAN FACTOR 5ODR.E5 BY SEX VARIOUS "POPULATIONS. OF SMOKER8 °. ]4F.N~ ITEM SCORE FOR EACH FAGTOR Z'5" 2"0. Io~, It)" 0 "S° SI4OKIN8 ,'~ FF'MAL~.~.LIIIIC • ~, ,' ~ mu.s IS~P~-E I[] i II • ~ II Otl ~Z ..... .~ ii • • II st IUJ'~r. LL, ~.j..,,'~'~\ ,' , .-, / . ," 7" "~ '~', s e "g MAIN .: ,",, / I/ X'X~.. ,',, _/.~. .oi I I Ms~u. d ~ ce.~s 0 FAGTORU FACTOR Z FACTOK3 FACTOA4 FACTOR.~ FAGT01~& k~ToRT~) _~ ' ml¢~,WR, IAL ~mCTIVF. "SEDA'r WE" INDUB.f~NT ' , " ~, ;. - ~N,I~ItOWTQR J~JTOMATIC, BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION O,,,

I ! ! I BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢,..m

-10-- Frocme4ing to objective methods for maasu~£nS 4i~f~cencas in smok~nK behav£our, the su4LZeacion that cbe dose per unit weiKht: relationship ULLKhC apply to va~Lou8 8~roups of smokers has already been raised in Chls report. Cona£d~cinK comparat£ve data for the total volume of smoke taken from a reference c/~aracta (an iadez ghich $;ves • crude juida to r~e intake of uAcotine from tILLs cLKaretco) it is 4~tere~t~ to note that Total volume of smoke for males the ratio Total volume of smoke for females obULiJSed fr~ a study at Group R. & D. Centre (TAble 6) 48 close to the ratio for body veijhCs (Table 7) (glveu in 17). TABI~ 6 S'~OK.~G BEHAV'IOT~ (U.K. STUDY) Males Females All Subjects Smoking nacbine male Puff Number 1L.8 12.5 12.1 10.2 O. 94 Total Volume of Smoke (ml) 423 378 4O6 357 1.I2 Averase Puff Volume (ml) 37,5 30, 9 35,0 35.0 1.21 &retaKe Puff Duration (set) 2.43 1.g7 2, 26 2,00 1,23 Average Puff XnCez~Tal (sac) AO.2 38.0 39.4 58.0 1.06 But:l: LenKth (mm) 28.& 29.6 28,9 23,0 0,96 J4htle Sample Jbtle |llilll! ]Lt f:iO |tStlt U,L sSe 30-39 74,5 60,6 1,23 U,L sSe aK)--49 76,6 62,3 1,22 U,S,A, age 35--39 75,3 61,7 1,22 age ~b0-49 7.5,8 64.4 1 • 17 age 50-59 74,8 67,1 1,11 BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION oo

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-11- S/:~la: ~rend8 are also to be noted in maauremmCl df the 8mok~s pazamsceZl of male am/ female smokers made in the U.S.A. and reported by Gr~f£~hs et &l. (18), lhOWn /~ Table 8. It £s also understood (19) chat jt~ulie8 •t ~he Phil£p Hot:is Kesearch Centre, R~chmoud, U.S.A. h-re lad£c•ced chat body ve£sht £s a~ Lupor~snt detezm~nant of smoking behav~u=: •s such, d/~fe~ences would be expected bQL--deID I~he IlaZSS. T~.E 8 Hales 9.31 Females 9.69 All Subjects 9.46 male Rat£o ~ O. 96 Tot::•1 Volume of Smoke (ml) • || t 447.90 373.07 415.96 2.20 Ave=•ge Fuff Volume (-1) 48. ].I 38.S0 43.97 1.25 AveraKe Puff l~r•cion (uc) 2.47 2.14 2.33 1.15 Aver•gelh~f Yeterval (8ec) 24.2.5 25.20 24.72 0.96 Butt Length (ua) 34.64 35.30 34.92 0.98 AlcbouKh these d~faremces 4,, smoke volu~ arm roll, and possLbly of atnor i~po:tance, d/~fereBces /Jz ocher upecCs of smok/J~ behaviou= (£.e. puff number, puff /nterv•l) between r~e sexes have also been noted vben anokers have been studied i~rrepclciously •t Group R. & D. Centre (20). Rovever, no d/~fezeDctl were observed in • s~Laz study carried ouc for the Tobacco ILeseazch Counc£1 i: the U.K. (2Z). • more detailed study of d/~fe:ences 4~ smok~u4 behavioer beL~m the sexes v88 carried out in the analys£8 o£ smokin~ behav/~u~ ~mam~rsM after the subjects had been Ln • s~essful sieuation (possibly i.uvolvi~q; some elemtncs of deprlvac£ou), du=Ln8 the ::ec0rding of EEG data (22). In cl~s experi:enc, anslysLs of the results (shown in Table 9) sussested chac ~he femaZe smokers va=e les.._.~s affeece4 by the env£rou~mc chart ~he maze smoke~s, •ZrJ~u~h r~t:e were many 8/~L~aricies in the chanses observed. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION C.m (..m q~

OU > --4 C3 O r- ! K Z Z Test Total Volume of Smoke (al) TABLE 9 AVERAGE SHOKING PAIUk~TERS FOR HALE AND FEHALE SUBJECTS DUIIHG E,E.C. STUDY AND SHOKING SURVET Total Puff Duration (set) Hale E,E.G. 525.8 33.0 Survey 385.8 26.6 Difference Z +36 +24 Feeble E.E.G. 481.4 28.6 Survey 391.8 Z4.4 Difference Z +23 +16 * From burr analysis. Total Intervals (sec) 320.9 390.8 -18 354,5 416.5 -15 Total 8u~t Average Average Puff Puff Puff Puff Pressure Length Nmmber Volume Duration (ca W.C.) (mm) (at) (set) 517.3 30.6 14.2 39.3 2,35 406. l 30.0 11.6 34.1 2.30 *27 +2 t22 +15 +2 444,3 30.6 14.3 35.1 2.04 407.1 28,4 12,4 32.6 2.01 +9 +8 +15 +8 +I Average Puff Interval (sec) 26.4 39.3 -33 28.3 40.0 -29 Average Puff Pressure (ca ~.C.) 38.0 35.8 +6 3t.O 3Z.O +6 Average Average Average Average Total (fst£e~red) Orau Time Nicotine Nicotine Resistance Alight in Butt (cm W.O.) (see) (mg) in Smoke* (mg) 16.2 354 l. Ol 3.03 15.6 411 - - +t -Ik - - I7,1 16.3 +5 379 442 -14 0.91 2.73 I StOqqO1

m r,o BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

,-] o [.-, ,-.{ ! Z Z o >, c3 $ t'-" -] ,-] ©. :Z ~17.~ lOS, SOl ) I;

+ ~. + ~'- Toc,81+ To~ot Toy,81 'g°Lmm Pvlt' Test of lucit i,~ 18c4mqm3~ 11~ (eee) (Ne) CmZ) I IvlZ__e lr.g.ll. $2S.8 3300 31110o9 34U,.11 3DI.4r, $510.I lMLlfl~,. Z 4.]41, ~ -m 1.56.S 6.]L6.S -IS E.IoG. 6IL.& 1.6 Jgt.ll 16.6 mtferemce 3 ~ t16 • h II~tt ill|71~i. ~ll IiIg Ipllll LmSt..h nm, a rvuevn (ms) fen v.6.) 211.3 )0.6 1672 4106.1 ~ID.D I~.6 Av, sraSe Jlmmlle : lmerli8• bm4rrile Pl, tf Pnt'f 11,d£ ~dl vel.,.~ IhtlrstL~ I Imsae"eeJ. i I~ros~ Ina) lees) Cooe) ¢m v.o.) i ii tlllJl • ii IS.] 1.$$ ~.4 .111.11 " )1.1 1.30 ~19.3 stl.tl +'iJ 44 ~ "4 dm~&llO IIW~NIe ~raSe &wertrele Total or.st I,nste4) lEVeL J* (an u.I;.) IJ.tlbmCNm) t.8~* ,t J ,i 16.~t ~,4 1.0'I. ~,,03 1.11.4 141 * - 44 -I.4 - + 666.3 ~0.6 IA+3 M7.1 ll.& 11.6 • • 4t ,.4 ,,.1..5 U.I 1.416 sin.) 314+.0 n.4 z.ot 40.0 31.0 .4 +.t ,,,,It 44 17. I ~/t O.lJl ~ 73 14.31 ~ - - 44 -4¢ - * BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m

-12- jm~~ Th£s study was £olloved up by • second ezper~ne~t in u4~h the same 8ubjec~s vert dtl=ivtd froR I:ok~q for 8 Jimiltr ptriod oE tile (to the du=at£on of the EZG ezper~nsnt) but not subjected ~o any etzess (23). Once asa~n the men reacted to the sit~stion more sr~onSly than did the women (Table 10) tlthough the d~.f£erences 4~ m~k~ag behavtm~ begotten the sexes 8re c~8J~ttivtl7 8Nutllo ~dd~Bl~Te this expez4--nt JusJBtJtQd that stress wss ~:deed the £8~:or regpong£ble for the lazge changes in smoking behsv£our seea Lu the E~G experiment. TABLE 10 EFFECT OF DEPRI~ZOH ON PUFF VOLUNE i • ii Volvm8 (ml) Z Chsn|e i Depr£ved Survey 442 392 +13 Tamale Depr£ved Survey ii 414 387 4.7 ~jr-t 0 ,memm~ (.j-j BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

> N o t- I K z Z > © > © t'- N C~ > ©- Z '. dJJ dJ,I

-13- The Cvo most racemt behav~oural studies at Group L. & D. Centre also show di£ferences in smoking behaviour beCveen the sexes. Thus female smokars w~ce show~ to be more sansicive Chmn ramie smokers co changes in smoke temptraCuze aC short buCC ZonSCI~ (24). Compared co r.he coac=ol c£gazetce (normal smoke temperature) women smoked 8n ezperLmm~cal c£Sa~etce (hiKher smoke temperature) so as Co ZLave a 1onset butt. Hale smokers rare insensitive Co the change. Hare recently sixteen mmmbe~s of Group K. & D. Centre, e£Khc males and e£Kht £amales, have taken part in • three month long behaviou~al study. The desiKn of this study is shown Ln Fisure 3. G~oup A 8 smokers Group B 8 smokers Hish dellve~7 c£SsreCte Control c£lazetce Lov deliver7 ciga~ecCe Phase Z Cont:ol c£sacette smoked exclusively CGroups A and B) Each phase lasted 4 weeks ii 4 male male TPM 36 mK T~ 23 mS TI:H 16 m8 Phase ZZ Group A Low delivez7 ci$mretCe Group B KLsh delivery cis~cette lr~G~RZ 3 & £emaZe 4 £emaZe HicoCAne l. 8 q HicoCine 1.4 mS a£coC~,,e 1,0 ms Phase X.TX Contz'o 1 c4Ka~ett8 (Groups A and B) av-~VZOmU~ A fuZZ a~slysis of the rtluLts is I~vl: tlslght=• (25) but ~C is ~ntmrescinK Co note Chat, umLu8 nicoCium (8mt4maCed dsli~e~ from butt uLysis) p~r tiEs:tote • mmber of cigazettes pez uu~C body weiKht smoked as the cr4te~ion, male s~oke.rs more o~ less success£ully compensated So: the hish ~cotine delivery civetS• B (compared Co the BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION / O O m

BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-14- co~trol ci~ceCte A), vhaEmu female smokers did not (Table 11, Phase ZZ, Tamale smokers Group B v Male Smokers GToup B). TABLE 11 3 ,,-~)NTa ~VXO~ EZX~..ZZ)I~T Subjects Male (Group A) Male (Group B) Female (Group A) Female (Group B) Exct~mtedH£coci~eZnCske Phase Z 98O 901 834 901 860 799 693 1096 Phase ZZZ | 896 766 602 748 ZC seems Eemsonably clear ream these abEam-rations thaC Chore are indeed variaclons in smokins behuiour between the sexes. However it is quiet another matter to rationalise chase differences and co explain ohms. In the fiEsC place Chexe is lussellem rather unexpecned observation cbac women are more highly moclvated nm men, aE leas~ in te~ of the resulUs from his qussnionn~ke, co be counrsmned wich the observation chac Lc is usually =mle 8mokers ~bo exceed 60+ per day. This apparent coc~lLcc could be exp1a£ned on the basis of the dose per unic weight relac£ouship discussed earlier and £n ceres of differaaces ~ the race aC which nicoc£ne is meCabolised by men and women. The si=plasc axplanacion mlshC be on the basis chac nlcocine is mecabolisaa more slowly by m0men than by men. There ~s m evidence that ch~8 it the cast. The set.bahia of nicotine hu bee scudded i~ conald~rabla detail and • recent rniew coucludmi r~mc "compax~.son of nicoc£ne mlcmboZima ~n male and fmRla smokers £s compZicaced, however, by the app&renc metabolic chm~Ee8 i.odueed by smoking mmd ~he validity of BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION ¢_r't ¢..t'l %0

..-C BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-15- F¸ such • cm~:atison is some~: dubious". Nevertheless the re:ults are cmu£d~red as "perhaps Lml£cae/=$ :hat sex-l~Xed amtabol£m of nicotine occurs in humans" (vlth wome= uetabol£s~g n£cot~e Dote slovly than ~). l~is is :born: in • fi~e published by J~et (4), FiSut• 4 this report. This £i&~Lte iS ~nte:prete4 most e~stly if :he Group A and Geoup B male mao~x~cs a:e :oaside:~ to be of tJze same ~oup. However since the ££:st 4:a~t of this :spot: ~8 wt£tt-~ it £s ~ezstood (26) that sm~ of Dr. N.k.H. hssell's retest work (as yet ,republished) cases some d~bts ~: the c~mcIusi~s teach•4 ~ this :ev£e~. • u:the: ~sisbt ~to d;f£etncas in smoking be/~viouz betveen the sexes is obea~,:ed by :el•fence to ~be work of Scb~ll~$ et aT. in S~ede~ ~m~mmmm. (27), ~ se,,~ad the :elat£onsh£p be~vee~ personality and amount o£ sa:k~ng (number o£ c:~gsratt=s ~mokad per day) £or two groups o~ males and ou ~:oup of £ales. ~o~ the male ~:oups t~ete ~re several s£$=££~cant co.elations be~vae~ mt o~ smok~un~ and the pa:so~l~ £au=tor ext-tav~cs~m- ~puls~ve~ess. ~o: ~he £em~le g~oup bovs~e= the =elations ~ets in the opposite d£ze~t~o~ (although not statistically s~.~ca=t). Thus ~le "he~" smokers tezuL to be ext:ove:ted vbere~s file •'hejira" lke:I tmu~ to be ~ntto~ette4. S£=ce, by de£i.u~t£o~, ~ttove:ts ~:e mote :eact£ve to ~be e~ects o£ drugs £t £ollovs that £emsle "heavy" s:oke:s ~ould, ~ objective tea•s, ~e less heavily than ~-le "heavy" smok~zs. It ~sy also be noted that Scha~i/~s's ecmclusions LTe eons~stent v~th ~:ith's observa=~ons that £emsle mmk~cs ate mo~e l~kely to smoke ~ h~8~ly stressed s~tm~t~oas than a~l• :ao~n. T~t:o~e~ts are less ~ell ~bLe ~o tolerate b~sh l~rels o£ stress ~ are extroverts. Some support £or Sc~sll~'s york has also beam obtained at Group ~. & D. Ce~L~e. For BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-. . - . FIG.,q- RD. 14.10 RESTRICTED METAE)USM OF T~C, CO ALKALOIDS % URI/¢ARY I~~ION 5O 40 aO MALE COII~PARItlON OF FE/I~ URINARY I~EGOVI[Ili|S OF NIGOTINE(~D RiO COTtmNE (E).) ~ MALE AND ~£ SMOK~ItS ,tMO JWN--SMOK[~ Ae'rem :~m em'~veNous ~MmS~TION OF S-O'e,~, oat C--~)- N~cm'J,e "~N (+3-'r~mr~xr[.. r~ LOw Ker.ovE~v, (m KIn. ~covr.m, ssoues, eso~ O~NNt~ ~93). I ~J~ m r'~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

~a~~-. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-Ib - "" t' °... • BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-16- male smokers t~re was • sii~ificant posit£v• correlation be•teen rate average volume of smoke taken in puff) of smoking (mr/set) (defined •8 8ve~a6e duration of pu~£ and excrave=sLon. 7or female subjects the correlmclon was in the oppos£ce direcC£on, buc noC 818nLficanc (28). On the ocher hand the results from the EZG study cazTied ouc •c Southampton do not ant/rely mszee vlth thLs the•l•, i.e. the female smokers re•toad less to stress ~han male smokers (as defined by change in mnoke volume). when asked to smoke Lu • laboratory envlronment. However this is • sore•that different crLteriou chat • smoklns/not smok/a4 choice in the outside world and it is not knotm the•her the s~all panel used in the EEG study was tTp£cal of male and female smo~ers sen•rally. 2.3 Product Preferen,,e Scudi•s Aft.hough Fro•eel: "WHE2L~', orSanisad by Group R. & D. Ce~ttre, may be reserded as a fairly de~a£1ed invts:iption of product preference, the lazKe panels recruited for these studies consisted 8zclus~vely of male smokers. The only ocher study at Group g. & D. Centre relevant to the objectives of th£s review ks • much mLsller 8~uty concerned vith preference measurements of t£pping ].~ths of f£lter-tipped ~4garettes. S:a:ist£c•lly b~ghly s4gn~ficant differences in the p=e~erences of the sexes vere found An •11 tht @Xper~JB~tDtl CJtl~ied O~t, ~ pre~e:r~g shorter tippin~ lengths than men. Thtrt a~fe, of ~OUrlt, ~11~8~ou8 ltuditl which analyse • milker te=ms of various demopaphtc var~sbles and it: is usual to f~d that: sex is one of the deteraLnant• of the ma:k~t, a~ is shown in Table 12, reproduced from "Survey of Cigerattt ~ok~l~ ]~J:&vio~T ~Dd Atl:iCud8~", F~as~an Chemical Frodw=ts, ~nc. (2). BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

O~ BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-17- TA3I,E 12 TYI'E 01' CI~ SHOI~D EELATIVE TO AGE AND SEX OF SNO~R ~e Up co 2A 25-34 35-46 45-54 55-66 65 and Up 2.6 itmsulaz" Smokers 13Z 18Z 25Z 20Z 16Z 8Z IOOZ M~ Han~hol Filter Smoke:s ~Z 24Z 26Z 1OZ AZ I~Z Hms-Hantbol Filter Smokers 20Z 21Z Z3Z 19Z 13Z ~Z 1OOZ Relular Smoke:s 17Z 2OZ 3OZ 22Z 9Z 2Z 1OOZ m ~tCinR l~b£ce ~Tm ~mtbol FLlter Smokers 13Z 3OZ 3OZ 21Z ~Z 2Z IO0Z Nou--NmlChol 71liar Smokers 23Z 22Z 23Z 20Z IOZ 2Z 100:[ The dlscribucion of smokers in the U.E. by sex and social class has already been discussed (th£s report, Table 1). Admitt~ag Ukst the results cannot be ~n:ex-p:e:ed too e~sily (because of the in~miuction of younser subjects into each category and the losses due to Iorr.slity of older subjects) it can be reasonably ass~d in some Ip:oup8 (nor~bly Woman, Social Class Z) thac substan:ial mmbers o£ takers have quit, and :ha: qui~cin6 is • diJE£eramtial habit. & unique and de~£1ed study of quit~ins habits in e small ~m, Gre~E£eld, in 1~m, U.S.A. has beln U~bllsbed by Ph£1ip Mo~le (29). These re~Its (T~ble 13) de~o~•~e ~ly c2~1y ~b~t ~ ~=e :uch less successful Lu StvlnS up mokins rJ~an ~are mn. This is consistent w~Ch anothaz study of the ability eo Siva up smo~ reported BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m C

• . . - • OO BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-18- TkBLE 13 _HTa~R OF SUCCZSSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL PARTICIPANTS | | Group Respondents Sonsmokec (Hay) Smoker (Hay) No try to qu£C Tried Co quit ¥a~led, resumed wlthin month LasCed Month Lasted 7 u~nChs ÷ tee Total 1,385 941 4~ (1OO.OZ) 278 (62.6Z) 166 (37.4Z) (100.OZ) 74 (4A.6Z) 92 (55.4:C) 47 (28.3Z) Hen 6O4 315 289 (1OO.OZ) 172 (59.5Z) 117 (40.5Z) (IOO.0Z) ~omen 781 626 155 (ZOO. OZ) 106 (68.42) 49 (31.6Z) (IO0.OZ) 68 (41.OZ) 69 (59.0Z) 41 (35.0Z) ii 26 (53.0Z) 23 (47.0Z) 6 (12.2Z) by Burns (30). Females were si~a/~icanCly Less ma¢cems£ul ~n mCopp~ mmoking than ~e m~lam. The apparent anomaly ~Lch the results given in Table 1 of ~ report (Lmply~nK a hish incidence of qutCcLu8 by some ~emmle smokers in the U.K.) is most probably explicable in Ce~m8 o£ 8 complex interaction between qu£cc/~K habits and socizl class: subjects of the higher social classes be.~nzmuch more successful aC qu£tc£n8 than those o~ lover social classes. Thls has also been studied by Philip Morris in Greenfield, Iowa but only Ch8 =emults for men have been published (29). Most recently Fro£assor C.M. FleCche=, in a talk at the Royal Society of Medicine (September 1976) has made the statement ChaC women have Steerer d4Yf£culCy in Kiv~q up mk-inK than men (31), alChoush the bas~s of chime rams=ks is noc knee. Finally some results obCaiamd at Group K. ~ D. Centre may be quoted. A comparlsonhas bee=made o£ mmk/~imot£vat£on scores (ms defined by Russell's Queationna:Lre and 8zbitrmrLly c£88sifiod as h~zb, medium or low) and certain factors of personality (as defined by the Cattail 16 PFO~. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION m k.rt

m BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-19- Two addicloual cateKori@s of smokers, non-mnokars and cur-smokers were added Co f;rcher c~ceKorlse the subjects. AlthouKh the comparet£vely small numbers of subjects in some Kzoups ma~e it difficult to drav ve~-y f£~a conclusions, ~h8 results (Table 14) suKKest I:hsC fmle e-smokers (camp•red to female takers) a:e cha:acta:ised by hiKh 4-tell£1ence and cead to be introve~:ced amd /ndependent, a parsonallCy prof£1e uhich sere approprLate for ~he hishe: socJ~l classes. Yor ~les there is less distinction between smokers and e-smokers suSSescizS, perhaps, that it is ea~£er for the •verses male to become a:~ ex-smoke:. TABLE 14 SubS ace CataSo:7 Non-Smoker• Lov Hale Medium ILLsh Ex-Smoke: • ,. .qon-Smoke=s Lov Female Ma~ium -;sh .. ml ,L • , , ,•_m Second O:de: Factors (Cattell) Fi=sc Order Factors ExvLa e 3.6 4.9 4.2 5.3 4.3 4.2 Anxiet7 5.3 4.2 5.1 6.5 5.3 6.4 4.2 5.9 5.8 7.7 6.3 6.4 4.0 7,3 i |. Statistical SipLi~ict~:e of bsult•. Females only: Fac~ B Kales anmF--ules cmub£ned: Factor & Facto= B All ocher results p • O.1 m , Corcercia 6.2 6.5 6.3 5.1 5.8 5.9 5.3 6.2 5.6 6.3 Zndependance J 6.4 6.3 6.5 5.8 6.1 5.1 6.5 5.1 7.0 7.5 A ii 10.9 11.8 12.8 14.8 13.5 m 14.6 13.0 14.8 16.6 10.3 B 11.1 12.5 11.5 11.4 11.4 9.4 11.0 7.8 7.4 11.1 Lov and/or Zz-Smokers v Ked£un and Rish p - 0.1 H:Lsh ~ Low p - 0.02 H~sh v Low p - 0.03 I (..rl m 0,, m BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

,t t BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION c.am

-20- COHCLUSZO~S The evidence rev£evad in this report leads to the reasonably f£~n couclusiou that the smokies behaviour of women differs from chat of man in a numbs: of respects. In some :espects it appears that female smokers are, c= cousidez themselves to bepmore hlghly mot4vatsd to smoke than male smokers and there is evidence tl~t they £~nd £t ha:de: to stop 8rookieK. Althoudh it is not completely cleaz why rJ~Ls should be the case, £~ u~7 be related co the observations t~st women raze more neurot£c ~ amn and mote likely Co need to smoke in sC:ess£ul situations, presumab17 because they are less yell" able Co deal with stress. On the other hand there are cc~pazatively few £amle heavy smokers: Ch£s may be =elated to d~£e:emces in body ~£Kht, d;Yfe:ences in psycholos£cal factors (notably extraverslon), area, temrAtivtly, to d£££s=ences in the race at vbich n~coCine is meCaboldsed. Zn terms of product dtsip che:e does not seem to be • &~reat deal of evidence th&t women in genec&I raqu~:e • ¢iKazette del£verLug relatively Zow mlouncs of n£cotine - 4n fact soar Gvidence points in the o~posiCe d~rection. Itovevez, siren thaC roman are more umu=ot£c than ~en £c seems reasonable to usuma ChAt they v~ll react mo:e aCrongl7 eo slok~ug and health pressures. Zn chat leaK~e r~bles ummlZy assocL~ta nicot~J~ and ca= together, ~men couZd Ch~zLfc:e be expected to move Covaz~ls 1or deZtvez~ cigarettes mo=e strongly chart male smoke:s. T.f it is not possible to separate "CLc" sad "nicotine" ~JS the sdJ~s o~ the ~, it could be argued that an 4deal c£Sa:ette £oz women smogs ~ould occupy a :elat£vely fmvo~ra~le position in a lmsK~8 t~ble, buc ~ould be of a su£r~sble des£K= BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-~-I -- O.. / BAT Co LTD o MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-21- that co~s£derably more a~cotine could be obtained, relatively easily, when .smoked by a human as campmrsd to a ~schi~. ~ practlce many c£garetCas sze smoked in such 8 way r~at cons£darably mar@ smoke is taken by the human than by • smok/~K mach/~e operat~ under s~andard condit£o~s, but it is su88ested that considarat£on should be liven to the utility of va:£ous c£Karette dasi8~8 in ~h~s co•text, with special :e~erence to N£cotJJ:e :aCios. Ta: A/tez~atlvely tJ~ete my be • case £o: launchLz~ • £em~lt o:£an~ed c£sarette v£th :elatively hiKh deliveries of nicotine, complemincary to the present app=oach vh~ch seems biased :•yards womsn (usually yc~ t ~n) who li~ • "~t too strop" ci~•tt•. Zt could be that ~he se~ent o£ smok~ £e~al~ preferr/~ line de~ive~ c£8~•ttes £s, in £•ct, =•ther ~11. Zt £s there£ore o£ ~te~est to note ~he follc~r~ quota~£~n stcr£bu~ed to J.F. ~. R.J. ~ynold's d£rec~or o£ marke~Lng, £n cc~ec~£on ~h ~he lmmch o£. Dawn 120 in the U.S.A. "~h~t~l now. they (vomen) have been £orced to choose bs~zmen b].m~L ~sst/~K ~omen's c£Kara~tes or bcands whose •ppea:a~ce had little to sec ~hem •pa=t £rom the o~he~ ].20 brands on the market". There may be orA~tr ~mpl£cations of the resu].ts revLeved in ~his report (e.g. in other •4pacts of product preference c~ in pack des£Kn), some o£ vh~ch may ~].:eady be practised or contemplated ~chtn the Kroup. The 8u~hor would ~he~e~o:e be Srace~ul for any c~~s relevant ~o th~s rav£sv, for possible /~corporation /~o• later version. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

¢...m.. BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-22- 1. Todd, G.T.p "Cb~uaes ~un mmok~K pmtcerus in the U.K.". e e o e 6. e 8. e 10. 11. 12. Tobacco R~surch Counc£1, Landau, U.E. 1976. 0ccasioual Paper 1. Survey o£ Cigazatte Smok~ Beb~vimz: mud Attltudel. Eastman Chemical Pcoducts Znc., ]~Lngspotc, Te-,messae, U.S.A. 1967. E~v the Brazuis Ra~ked, lla:nfell ~ca~'D~tLoauml ZmC4m~Ces, ~ld Tobacco, October 1975, p. A7. Gorcod, J.W. and Jeane:, F., The HmCaboliom of Tobacco Alkaloids, Essays £n Tozicology, 35, 6, (1975). B.A.T Rmporc Bo. RD.1374 ~es~cLcced, Z7.$.76. Cal:ce11, K.]S., "~ersou,,lity and Mood by questloumalre", 3ossey--BLss, San F:anc£sco, U.S.A., 1973. B.A.T ~tpo:t Ha. RD.1126--R, 17.7.74. Hmusue:, 3.8., "SmokluK ~ Hedical Students", A:ch. Euvirou. Health, 51, 13 (1966). Clausal, J.&., "&doLascenC antecedents of ciKazet~e I~OkJJ~4;", 5oc. Sc£. H~d., 357, 1, (1968). Evans, S.H., W£1kes, E. and DRLzTmple-Smith, D., '~PreaympComac4c d£a4p~osis. A scudy i= country p=&cC£ce", 3. Roy. Co11. Gen. Prmcc., 237, 17, (1969). T~, S., "A modified male1 o£ smok~ bebmvlomr" in "Smok.~u$, BeaIcb and Bebaviour'*, 3o:K&C~s, E.F. mud Zvmns, ~.B. Eds., A~d£nt PubZLab~ Co., Ch~caKo, U.S.A., 1968, p. 165. HcJ~u=e11, &.C. mad Tb~m~s, ~.~., "&dult8 and Adolescenes Smok~ Hmb£cs", Goveramm=c Soc~al S~rvey, E.N.S.O., Loadon, U.E., 1967. BAT Co LTD - MINN~TA TOBACCO LITIGATION mmmm~ mm~m~

ja~" BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-23- 13, H,..r,,--ell, A.C., "A Compac£son of Two l~ok.i.n4; Typolol;£es, Tobacco il.eseJucch Counci.1, ll.aseJcrch Paper 12, 1973o Russell, M.A.H., PeCo, 3. and Petal, U.A., "The Classification of Smoking by Factorial Structure of Motives", J.R. Statist. Soc. A., 313, 137 (3), (1974). 15. Zkazd, F.F., Green, D.Z. and Born, D., A scale to differentiate baden types of smok.i:~ as related to mmaaSement of affect. Internat. J. Addict., 649, 4.., (1969). 16. "Smoking behaviour and its relation to the smokers i~ediate experience". Frith, C.D., Brit. J. SociAl and Clin. Psychol., 73, 10, 1971. 17. B£ology Dana Book, Vol. 1, 2ha Edition, Federation of American Soc£et£es for Experimental Biology, MazTland, U.S.A., 1972. 18. Moody, P.M., &ve¢iTt, J.H.i and Grlffith8, l.B., "CuzTent Status of the Core Sscvlce SmokLuS Behsvlo~c Studies" in Tobacco and Health Workshop Conference, March 26-28 1973, University of KmncuckT, Lexington, KentuckT, p, 18. 19. Dunn, W.L. Jn:., personal coumunication. 20. B.A.T Leport ~o. RD.1201-R, 1.5.75. 21. Tobacco Keseazch Council, London, U.K., Papers )1638 and M806. 22. B.A.T Report No. RD.I15~-K, $.12.74. 23. B.A.T Report Bo. ED. 1252--E, 11.9.75. 24. B.A.T Report No. RD.1366 RascE4cted, 27.5.76. 25. B.A.T Report llo. RD.1409 Restricted, to be issued. 26. Russell, M.&.R., personal commmn/caCion. ~uam~ ~mmm~ t~ 0% %O BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

/ m BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

-2~- 27. Sch~s11~h~l;, D., "Cism:ette S~ir~ul; as =:el&ted to Pez'sonnlley and 5ituaC£oual Var~sbles", C£rculated am Tobacco ~searcb Counc£1 Paper N.548. 28. 01drear, K., personA1 ca~un:Lcsc£on, 7:Lle 46J, 1.7.76. 29. lyen, F.J., "Cold Turkey :Lu GrstmJ~£eld, Zovan, :Lu "Jimok:Ln8 Bebavlou: mad v,,c,-,,civss", Dumz, W.J., Ju.:., Ikl., V.Z. Wiasr.o~ & Sosss, WashLuston D.C., U.S.A., 1973, p. 231. 30. Burns, B.H., "Ch:oulc chest disease, pemouml£ty, "and success 4n 8coppLnz c£precce Imok.tJsg", )r4C. J. l~ev. 8oc. l~d. 2. 31. Clln£cal OncoloD Scud7 Cou:se ac Royal Soclec7 of 14ml£cJ~e, 13cb-17cb SepCmabe: 1976, ~epocC by Dr. T.J.C. Roe. Circulated as Tobacco Research Council Papez p.859. ~mmmb LJ~ u ~J~ mmmmD BAT Co LTD - MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION