Tobacco Documents Online

EPIDEMIOLOGY, STATISTICS and PSYCHOSOMATIC COMMITI{EE• TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE Dr. Wilsox>,, Chm 150 EAST iFORTY SECOND STREET NEW YORK 17, N..:Y: .. Dr. Cattel3. Dr. Little #354R1 Activated: 7/15/62 Application For Research Grant (RENEWAL) Date: FEBRUARY 19, - 1963 1. 'Nan,e of Investigator: ROBERT L. CRAIN, PH.D. (Formerly under Elihu Katz) a 2. Title: Assistant Professor of-Sooiology 3. Institution & Address: 4. Project or Subject: The University.of Chicago 1326 East 59th Street; Chicago 37, Illinois SOCIOLOGICAL A1VD PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRELATES OF ADOPTION AND DISCONIINCtATION OF•CIGARETTE SMOKING. 5. ~Detai eP an o Proce ure (Use reverse side if additional space is required). The purpose of our or3.gi.na]l study (TIRC Grant # 354) was to exam7ne the impiementation of the decision to give up cigarette smoking by comparing two groups: those who attempted to quit smoking and were unable (unables)s and those who were able to quit (quitters). In a,ddition., this study served as a pilot study to test anv.tusuaa method of characterizing the interpersonal environments of the respondentss which we wished to extend to a larger study.if it proved promising. The first step of the original study design was a large-scale telephone screening survey to locate an adequate number of respondents. The second step involved personall interviews with the respondents located by the screening. The last step consisted of brief telephone interviews with the respondents' closest tiassociates (relatives frieind at works friend away from work, family doctor) to examine their interpersona]l ernrironments. This proposal is concerned with an expansion of the previous study which we believe is scientifically des3rable. Although interpersonal environments did not differ significantly between quitters and unables, the findings are highly suggestive that differences wa.l]l be found between smokers and nonsmokers' and between those who made an attempt to give up smol4ng _attd fi.hose-_who,=haw_ never ---tri.ei to quit (see progress report no, 1). Because some of these differences may be due to bias inherent in the data collecting procedures it is necessazy to caray° out the same design with a group of nonsmokers and a group of smokers who have never tried to quit to confirm the suggestive f3nd3ngs. Many of the other tenative findings maV be substantiated by such control groups®

w c Inclusion of these additional groups would increase the sample size which plagued statistical inferences in the pilot study. We are thinking of an additional 100 respondents who have never tried to quit smoking and 100 nonsmokers.f` These two groups can be compared with our previous sample of 96 (50 unables and. 46,quitters) respondents who attempted to give up smoking. Many of the cross tabulations in the original study were difficult to carry out because the bases became too small for comparisons. For ixnstance, to examine the hypothesis that unables were turning to others for social support for continuing to smoke, we looked to see if they were turning to smokers or nonsmokers. The trend was in the direction of smokers, but the bases were too small for adequate comparisons. In the proposed study, we would have an additional 100 smokers to examine this b,ypothes3.s. " In addition we are interested in comparing the resporises of nonsmokers and smokers who have never attempted to quit.9 to the various questions,;with our original two groups. Otherw3.se, we,° are lima.ted to comparing our data with findings for nonsmokers and smokers ,from other studieso This weakens a comparative analysis since the studies represent different sample universes and methods of data collection. There will be no sampling costs for this proposed study since we have names of those who have never tried to quit smoking and nonsmokers.from the large-scale screening survey. The salaries listed inlt:the budget plan (on the next page) include funds to hire someone ,fzi,7..1-tiine for about ;three months to act as field director and porform other administrative and clerical funetions (e.g. typing letters to ' t he respondents, hiring and 's,upervising the field staff, coding the interv3,ew schedules, and telephone "snowball." 3n.terviewing), We feel that such a stwctr should be conducted as soon as possible, as too xaat~r changes taking place ~n the universe (e.g` the. A.M.A.: P.H.S* reports to be released later this year) would destray- the advantages of a comparative

W 6. Budget Plan: 7. Anticipated Duration of Work: 9 Irion'tlls Interviewing costs (field) $1100100 a. ' Salaries 1300.00 b. Expendable Supplies Z00•00 c., IBM costs d. Overhead (15~Jo of a, b, e) t50.00 e. Other(Quest3 onnaire printin ) 100.00 . . g Total 83.i50-00 8. Facilities and Staff Available: Professor Elihu Katz, the director of the original study9 is currently on leave to Hebrew University., Jerusalem; but is willing to serve as a consultant to the proposed study, Mr. Jacob Feldmau' Director of Research., National Opin3.on Research;Center' who has been quite interested in this subjectj, wi].1l also serve as consultant. Mr. Bruce Stxa:I.tse graduate student in the Department of Sociology,, w3.11l continue on this project under the direction of Professor Robert Crain, . 9. Additional Requirements: r 10. Additional Information (Including relation of work to other projects and other sources of supply): - Signature a Director of Project Business Officer of the Institution