Anne Landman's Collection
BIRD-I A STUDY OF THE QUIT - SMOKING CAMPAIGN IN GREENFIELD, IOWA, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MOVIE, COLD TURKEY
Abstract
In August 1969 all the citizens the town of Greenfield, Iowa attempted to quit smoking as a publicity stunt connected with the on-site filming of the movie Cold Turkey. Philip Morris (PM) surveyed the citizens 8 months after their quit attempt. PM used local Girl Scouts to hand-deliver the questionnaires to citizens (to increase the acceptance of the packets). They paid $5 to everyone who completed and returned a survey. The Girl Scouts were instructed to knock on doors and give a questionnaire packet to "every person who was 14 years old on Cold Turkey Day." This report contains Philip Morris' analysis of the success of citizens' efforts to go "Cold Turkey" and the unpleasant side effects they experienced. PM's descriptions are entertaining, chauvinistic and, of course, paint a dismal picture of quitting smoking:
"Even after eight months quitters were apt to report having neurotic symptoms, such as feeling depressed, being restless and tense, being ill-tempered, having a loss of energy, being apt to doze off, etc. They were further troubled by constipation...As can be seen from Table 3, the...differences among male smokers were sizable, but the female data are the most startling. The anti-smoking campaign failed to persuade the women to quit. We can only conjecture at the reasons for the failure: --perhaps it is because women are better at running their husbands' lives then their own... --perhaps it is because busy housewives are less exposed to anti-smoking arguments, or less responsive to logical argument, or less apt to participate in community affairs...It is also possible that [smokers who] wish to stay off smoking have learned from experience that alcohol weakens their resolve. A sad picture is painted of the quitter who used to enjoy himself at a party, now restricted to coffee, fruit juice and coke, turning his back on the swingers in the kitchen in order to hover around the candy and peanut tray among the staid old gossips in the parlor. After one or two such experiences he probably quits partying altogether...The net effect of the extra food at mealtime and the snacks of candy, nuts, ice cream and coke had its predictable consequence: the quitters report more trouble with constipation and much more trouble with weight gain. This is not the happy picture painted by the Cancer Society's anti-smoking commercial which shows an exuberant couple leaping into the air kicking their heels with joy because they've kicked the habit. A more appropriate commercial would show a restless, nervous, constipated husband bickering viciously with his bitchy wife, who is nagging him about his slothful behavior and growing waistline."
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Quotes
BIRD is our in-house code name for the study of an intensive anti-smoking campaign in Greenfield, Iowa. Greenfield (population 2100) made an effort to go "Cold Turkey" as a community, with all smokers in town encouraged dto quit smoking abruptly at the same time. The procedure paralleled the anti-smoking effort depicted in "Eagle Rock, Iowa" by the film, "Cold Turkey", which was released January 30, 1971, by United Artists.
...For present purposes it is enough to recall that this became a major anti-smoking effort among a group of mid-Americans noted for their integrity and sincereity; that is was accompanied by miscellaneous strong social pressures which rewarded abstinence from and discouraged return to the act of smoking; and that it was accompanied by a spotlight of regional and national publicity unprecedented in the lives of the people involved. There have been other community-wide anti-smoking campaigns, but this one was unique because of the parallels with the motion picture, the presence of the actors and camera crew, the employment of many citizens as extras in scene after scene, etc. For over a month the lives of the people of Greenfield became almost inextricably interwoven with the lives of their fictional counterparts in "Eagle Rock." As film star Dick Van Dyke was to comment later on national television, 'It was crazy...you couldn't tell where the film let off and the town began."...
PROCEDURE
Distribution and Return Rate
The questionnaire packets were distributed door-to-door within the Greenfield city limits by local teenagers, most of whome were Girl Scouts. Each packet consisted of a cover letter, a basic questionnaire...a personality test...and a postage paid pre-addressed envelope. The girls, who were seldom turned away from a door as strangers would have been, gave out 1592 packets. Their instructions were to leave a packet for every person who has 14 years old or older on Cold Turkey Day. We estimate that there are 600 children in Greenfield beneath the age of 14, and the preliminary 1970 census report shows Greenfield's population to be 2212, so that it appears we did contact almost al the eligibles (2212-600=1612).
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Ryan, Frank J. (PM Scientist)Philip Morris scientist (circa 1973), developed smoker puff-profiles, compiled data on compensation and lip occlusion of ventilation holes. Associate Senior Scientist with PM, c. 1987.
- Recipient
- Cullman, Joseph Frederick III (PM President & CEO (1957-1970))Executive vice president and senior marketing executive of Philip Morris in the 1950s. Exec. VP 1955-57. President in 1958, held that position until 1967. Chairman from 1968-1972 and acquired title of CEO. Chairman of the Executive Committee, 1979-85. On the Board of Directors from 1954-1985.
- Weissman, George (PM Chairman & CEO '79-84)
Vice President of Philip Morris from 1954 to 1956. Vice President and Assistant to the President in 1957. Vice President of Marketing from 1958-59. Executive Vice President of Marketing in 1960. Exec. VP Overseas in 1961, Exec. VP PM International 1962-66. President from 1967 to 1972. President and Chief Operating Officer in 1973. Vice Chairman from 1974-78. Chair and CEO from '79-84 and on the Board of Directors from 1959-84. "Mastermind" of Philip Morris' direction.- Millhiser, Ross R (TI Executive Committee, PM Pres, 1968)
Ross Millhiser was Vice President of Philip Morris in 1952, VP and Director of Marketing at PM 1961-62, President of PM USA in 1970-72, President of PM Inc. in 1977, Chair of the Tobacco Institute Executive Committee and Vice Chairman of PM Inc. in 1979, Chairman of the Board of PM in 1980. The above information is gleaned from correspondence found within the Philip Morris collection of documents. The assumption is made that Millhiser worked at Philip Morris the entire time between 1952-1994, based on his correspondence during those dates, however nothing has been found in the documents verifying his positions at PM during the gaps in time noted above. President of Philip Morris in 1968 Millheiser was with Philip Morris in 1983 in New York. Knew that profitability of PM derived from addictive nature of nicotine. Why risk multi-billion dollar business for your rats, Victor.- Cullman, Howard S. "Hugh" (PM Inc., President 1957-67, CEO '67-78)
Howard "Hugh" Cullman was the brother of Joseph Cullman Jr. He was president of Philip Morris, Inc. from 1957-67, Chairman of Board and CEO of PM 1967-78, Chairman of Executive Committee of the Board 1978.- Goldsmith, Clifford Henry (B&H (1953), PM Chief of Operations ('65) Pres of PM, Inc. (')
1953 Benson & Hedges. 1965 Philip Morris USA Chief of Operations. 1969-73 President of Philip Morris, Inc. 1978 PM Chief Executive. Served on Tobacco Institute Executive Committee, 1979.- Landry, John T. (VP of PM 1970-76. Sr. VP '77-83, Dir. of Marketing '84)
Vice President for Philip Morris, Inc. from 1970-76. Became a Senior Vice President in 1977 and held that position until 1983. Was named Senior Vice President and Director of Marketing in 1984 and served on PM's Board of Directors from 1973-84. Served as memer of the Social Acceptability Working Party of ICOSI, c. 1978- Bowling, James Chandler (PM; TI, Corporate Affairs Director & VP; Board of Dir.)
Vice President and Director of Sales at Philip Morris from 1967 to 1976. He was Senior Vice President of PM from 1977 to 1984 and on the Board of Directors from 1971 to 1984. Also worked for the Tobacco Institute. Attempted to improve the image of smoking in the face of negative health news.- Lincoln, Jetson E. (VP Philip Morris)
Director and Assistant Director of MR, VP of Strategic Research, Director of Marketing-Planning Tobacco Production-Consumer Product Division, and most recently VP.- Seligman, Robert B. (PM VP of R&D c. 1976-82)
Vice President of Research and Development at Philip Morris Richmond, VA 1976-1982. Reported to Senior Vice President of Operations. In 1982 transferred to tobacco technology group. Wanted to share ammonia and other tobacco technology with PM International companies.- Udow, Alfred (Consumer Research Dept., PM c. 1972)
PM Consumer Research and Marketing Departments. Famous for intemperate written comments. Told the truth.- Fountaine, S.
- Pollack, Shepard P. "Shep" (PM President c. 1979-80)
Served on PM Board of Directors 1980-83, also served as PM chief of operations (circa 1980-82) and president of PM circa 1979-80. Served as CTR Treasurer.- Holtzman, Alexander (PM Asst General Counsel. 1975-85.)
- Wakeham, Helmut R. R., Ph.D. (PM R&D VP)
Vice President and Director of Research & Development, Philip Morris- Resnik, Frank Edward (Vice Pres., then Pres. and Chairman of Bd, Philip Morris)
TI Executive Committee. Prot駩 of Clifford Goldsmith. Vice President Philip Morris, Inc. from 1979 to 1984. President in 1984 and served on the Board of Directors from 1985 to 1989.- Thomson, Ronald H. (PM Europe President)
President, PM Europe- Fagan, Raymond (PM Principal Scientist c. 1968-83)
Principal Scientist at Philip Morris Research Center in Richmond, Virginia, between around 1968-84.- Eichorn, Paul A. (Worked with PM)
- Weissman, George (PM Chairman & CEO '79-84)
- Region
- United States
- Greenfield, Iowa
- Type
- Report
- Subject
- smoking cessation
Document Images
i
~
~
z
w
~
C
z
0
u
~ 2501 200338; #,__-.1
,.
1000348672
t
11
-1.
10
1 , 71 G06
F
r
I
I
i
~ ~.~.r
i
i
!
I
,
R .. , I r-
i
.. ~~
'
V
,
'~''
. , ;.
~ If
... ~
41. L. Dunn, Jr. ;«
0"
..
~
Distribution ~
~-
.
..
/J.
~ G.
Cullman
'aeissman
3'J. 6owling
,;J. Lincoln `
'=A. Ho1 t2-nan G:
~=ZH. Wakehan XQ,
'
% R. M illhiser ccp '' ,R.,, 5 e 1 i g m a n 0c.~
F. Rtsnik ~
-/H.
J C.
. J. Culiman
6ol dsmi th
Landry ~'o/ : A. Udowi{.+.0
;~ S. Fountaine
~S. Pollack ,6 R. Thomson ..
R. Fagarrl-: `
Eicnorn
2501200339
Cooy No.
Issued to
C~N~aE,~TI~L
This report contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL to the business of the Company.
The information must be carefully handled
and not divulged to outside sources without
express authorization.
This report is signed out to you individually.
It is not transferable and must not be repro-
duced. Please return it to the Research Center
Records Facility when it is no longer useful.
Project 1600
March, 1971
0
.. .. ..., s~
EIRDI A STUDY OF TiiE QUIT-SMGKING
CAMPAIGN IN GRENFIELD. IOWA, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE MOVIE,
C0L2 TuP_KFy
R
(13
i
71006 Copy 'to.
f
I Issued to
I
r
I-
C0N;:7DEN77AL
This report contains information which is
CONFIDENTIAL to the business of the Company.
The information must be'carefully handled
and not divulged to outside sources without
express authorization.
This report is signed out to you individually.
It Is not transferable and must not be repro-
duced. Please return it to the Research Center
Records Facility when it is no longer useful:
I
t
t
I
l
L
Project 1600
March, 1971
BIRIl-I A STUDY OF THE QUIT-SMOKING
CAMPAIGN IN GRE_NFIEL.O. IOWA.
CONJUNCTION WITN THE MOVIE.
Can T1jp 1csy
0
F. ,31 Ryan
IN
APPROVED BY L~^-- l
W. L. Dunn, Jr.
,
distribution ~ ~.
J. Cullman J. Qawling A. Holtzman ~
G.
R. Weissman
Miilhiser J.
R. Lincoln
Seligman H.
F. 'aakeham
R e s n i k C.? a
.:. ~
H.
C.
J. Cul iman
Goldsmith
Landry A.
S.
S. Udow
i:ountaine
Pollack R.
R.
P. Thomson
Fagan
Eicnorn (Z U)
a.+
y
CGNF7:ENT1qL
TABL~E OF COtlTEN TS
SUMMARY ' I
INTRODUCTION 2
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 4
PROCEDURE _ S
DISTRIBUTION AND RETURN RATE S
QUESTIONNAIRES AND FORM LETTERS 6
PROCESSING 714E DATA $
RESULTS L'
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESULTS 1~
SMOKER PARTICIPATION 13
~
CIGARE?TE TYPES 20
CONSUMPTION OF SNACK FOODS AND BE`lERAGES 22
NERVOUS MANNERISMS 25
CHANGES 114 CONSUMPTION OF MEDICINES 23
MINOR HEALTH PROBLE.4S 30
APPENDICES
1- EXCERPTS FROM EARLIER MEMOS ON E`JENTS OF COLD TURKEY DAY
Z- ABBRVIATIONS USED IN THE STUDY
3- CRITICISM OF RESPONDENT ACCURACY
.
4 - E'/.CERPTS FROM. MEMO ON A SECOND QUIT-StAOKI`1G a,TTE:?PT i`I
THE SAME TOWN
THE BALLOT AND ItJSTRUCTION SHEET ti+ IV
,-~ r
6' THE 16 P,F, TEST BOOKLET C ~
7 - THE FE EDBACX LETTER CJ
- ~
'~
$~ AN E:.4a11Pl.E OF A TYPICAL DATA SHEET ~ ~
-1 -r =
c1
I15
S U M M A R Y
c0N7,0ZNTIA
L
The town of Greenfield, towa, atternpted to quit smoking
in August, 1969, as a publicity stunt connected with the on
site filming of the movie, Cold Turkey. We interviewed
townsoeople 8 months later. This report covers the success
of their effort to go "Cold Turkey" and the unpleasant side
effects they experienced. A later report will relate their
success to their personality. Only 37:4X of the town's
smokers tried to quit, but 55.3% of the would-be quitters
(or 20.7% of the town's smokers) succeeded in giving up
smoking for at least a month. Eight months later, 28.3% ot
those who had tried to quit were still nonsmokers (or 10.6'%
of the original smoking population.) Men were more successful
at quitting than women. Health filter smokers were most apt ~
to try and quit and were most apt to be successful. Konfilter
and 85 mm filter smokers were least apt to try to quit, 85 mm
filter smokers were least apt to be successful.
Quitters ate and nibbled more nuts, gum, candy, etc.,
than they used to; but they didn't drink any more bear or
liquor-
Those quitters who had minor nervous mannerisms report
them more of a probiem than before. Control groups do not
reDort the problem.
Ther! Wers no increases in use of pills and medicines
associated with quitting.
Even after eight months quitters were apt to report
having neurotic symptoms, such as feeling depressed, being
restless and tense, being ill-tempered, having a loss of
ener?y, being apt to doze off, etc. They wert further
troubled by constipation and weight gains which aver3ged
about 5 lbs. per quitter.
0
l/ ~,
r
I
I
t
I
I
L
i
t
f
I N T R 0 D U C T 1 0 N
-
BIRD is our in-house code name for the study of an
intensive anti-smoking campaign In Greenfield, Iowa. Green-
field (population 2100) made an effort to go °cold turkey" as
a community, with all smokers in town encouraged to quit
smoking abruptly at the same time. The procedure paralleled
the anti-smoking effort depicted in "Eagle Rock, Iowa by the
film, CoTd Turkey,.which was released January 30, 7971, by
United Artists.i Cold Turkey was photographed on location in
Grtenfield and the neighboring communitits of uinterset and
Orient, and the Greenfield anti-smoking effort was suggested,
by the film makers as a publicity stunt to call attention to
the picture as it was being made.
A detailed description of the fun'and nonsense accompany-
ing the anti-smoking campaign and the making of the film has
betn presented elsewhere.2 For present purposes it is enough
to recall that this became a major anti-smoking effort among
a group of mid-Americans noted for their integrity and sincer-
ity; that it was accompanied by miscellaneous strong social
pressures which rewarded abstinence from and discouraged -
return to the act of smoking; and that it was accompanied by
a.spotlight of regional and national publicity unprecedented -
in the lives of the people involved. There have been other
community-wide anti-smoking campaigns, but this one was unicue
because of the parallels with the motion picture, the presence .
of the actors and camera crews, the employment of many citiza1s
-~
100034561
!EAptcted to open in ftew York sometime in March or Apri 1, 1971
2See AppendiA 1
2 -
~ju I d!~Uuj~tj
0
t
F
I
t
f
f.
I
I
~
~
CC,V~'1D'4r1qL
as extras in scene after scene, etc. For over a month the
lives of the people of Greenfield became almost inextricably
Interwoven with the lives of their fictional counterparts in
."Eagle Rock. As film star Dick Van Dyke was to comment later
on national television, It was crizy .... you couldn't
tall where the film left off and the town began."3
.
In assessing the effects of the anti-smoking campaign,
there are four important time periods and dates to keeo in mind.
The first is May, 1969. Three months prior to the anti-
smoking campaign, May serves as a baseline reference period
for evaluating smoking behavior. The second is the period
between May and August, 1969. During these two months the
town was selected as the site of the film, the advance men ~
arrived in town to contact property owners and advertise for
extras, and the City Council discussed the desirab.flity of a
community effort to quit smoking. This period ends on tht day
before 'Cold Turkey Oay," August 8, 1969, when the formal
anti-smoking campaign began. For convenience we will call
this period "June and July." The major time period is that
of the 30-day-long anti-smoking drive, "during the Cold Turkey
Campaign." It began on Cold Turkey Day (CTO), August 8, and
ended on September 6, 1969, when formal ceremonies were held
-- '
in which 10 (for "I quit") buttons were handed out. Some
peoole who tried to quit smoking on Cold Turkey Day resumed -
within a day or two, others lastrd a week, still others thrte
weeks. For convenience we will call all those who tried to
quit but resumed smoking within three weeks "unsuccessf4l
quitters," and all those who lasted the month "successful '*A N
'
quitters." C (-n
~
.:. ~
3v=.rsQhraSe~1 from h~~~aomments on the Bi11 Cosby Soe:ial, CZ ~
:~2C-i'J, tlovemoer, C ~_
. 3
/ (f)
~
~ , .
CONF7CEN77aL
~
~.
I
I
i
I
1
I
L
i
E
i
The fourth and'final period covers the six and a half
months between the end of the Cold Turkey Campaign and late
htarch/early Apri1, 1970, xhen the data for the present study
were gathered. It*may be'conveniently thought of as extend-
ing from Labor Oay, 1969, to Easter, 1970, inasmuch as our
data were gathered during Easter week. To be more technically
correct, our questionnaires were distributed in Greenfield on
March 25, 26, 27, 'and 28, 1970, and we~ received no return
postmarked later than Apri1 30, 1970. -
The critical time periods then are (1) May, (2), June and
July, (3) the Cold Turkey Campaign, and (4) Labor Day to Easter.
Puroose of This Study
0
11000348673
'For examoie, the filmed agonies of quit:ers in :agle Rock may
have suggested symptoms to quitters in Greenfield.
but there was no other alternative.
We visited and interviewed the townspeople during March,
1970, six months following the end of the anti-smoking campaign,
to see (1) what effect the campaign had on their long run smokg ing behavior, (2) whether the
smokers who quit developed any
substitutes for the cigarettes they abandoned, (3) whether the
immediate effects of quitting produced short or long term
problems such as aggressiveness, overweight, increased alcoholic
intake, etc., and (4) whether we could discriminate betaeen
nonsmokers, nonquitters, would-be quitters, and quitters on tne
basis of other variables related to smoking history, den+ogra:hy,
or personality. The first three of these questions art answersc
in this report. The answers were obtained in the most direc-
fashion: we went to Greenfield, gave everyone in town questi;,n-
naires, asked that they mail us the answers, and then analyzs:
the results. Such an approach is open to criticism, on the
grounds that it is retrospective and open to many types of errtir
. 4 .
2501 200345
,
jr9
.
r
r
i
t
I
I
I
l
t
L
P R 0 C E D U R E
Distribution and Return Rate
.
The questionnaire packets were distributed door-to-door
within the GreenfieId city limits by local teenagers, most of
whom were Girl Scouts s Each packet consisted of- a cover letter,
a basic questionnafre (see Appendix 5),,a personality test (see
Appendix 6), and a postage paid pre-addressed envelope. The
girls, who were seldom turned away from a door as strangers
might have beert, gave out 1592 packets. Their instructiorts
were to leave a packet for every person who was 14 years old
or older on Cold Turkey Day. We estimate that there are 600
children fn Greenfieid beneath the age of 14, and the prelimi-
nary 1970 census report shows Greenfield's population to be '
2212, so that it appears we did contact almost all the eligibles
(2212 - 600 1612).
A few people were not given packets because our local
representative knew them to be too aged or too infirm to fill
them out. A few people were missed because they were wintering
in warmer climates, and a few others were missed because they
wera (temporarily) hospitalized or out of town for various
reasons. Newspaper ads encouraged any who were missed to call--*
the local representative or write to POL for packets.
1335 The return rate was 90.1%, or 1435 questi onnaires , of wn i c-1
proved usable. The 50 non-usable returns can be chara:ar-
; izad very briefly: they were mostly from (a) older peoole
(b) who didn't smoke and (c) who didn't fill out their rsturns
properly. Their unfamiliarity with tests and questionnaires --
.~000345650
='~rs: Dorothy ArmsLrong, who had made an earlier cai neac
count, Supervised questionnaire distribution in Greenfield.
- 5 -
2501200346
1?D
CpNFIOE~
they belong to another era comoared with today's students caused them to make so many errors of
omission and commission
that we arbitrarily tossed their replies away. Their biggest
.
t
r
I
I
I
problem was in fiiTing out the personality test.
Two questionnaires (from a husband and wife) were voided
arbitrarily when it was noticed that they had answered almost
every question identicatly - includingthe 184 personality
test items - and that both questionnaires appeared to be In
the same handwriting although mailed several days apart. Both
were smokers.
The 1385 usable questionnaires represented 86.9: of those
distributed. Not all the 1385 were comptete, but none were .
seriously tncomplete.
branch of a question chain.
Q,uestionnaires and Form Letters_
The length, contents, and difficulty of a questionnaire
will obviously affect the return rate and accuracy of resoonse.
When questionnaires are very long or complex they are usually
administered by a quasi-professional poil-taker at a personal
interview. Such interviews may be brief, but are more fre-
quently an hour or two long. Excellent examples of such -
questionnaires are given in Use of Tobacco, the HEW 1969 reoor:
of tobacco usage collected in 1964 and 1966 by National
Analysts and by Opinion Research Corporation. These cor+olex
questionnaires were administered by trained interviewers.
Each interiiew lasted from 60 to 90 minutes depending on ho+ ^
many questions were relevant. The HEW questionnaires contained C
..
over 260 questions, many of which were in multiple parts. ~
Oepending on the respondents' answers, the interviewers skipaeo ~
from place to place in the booklet, tracking down this or tha: ^
Z
- 6 -
2501200347
(z1
CGAIFlGZ1 J
T1A4
'e ruled out such"a procedure for the present study on the
grounds of expense and unavailability of interviexers. we had
rejected training local interviewers on the grounds that some
.
respondents would not tell local interviewers the truth, but
might tell the truth to an impersonal computer a thousand miles
away.
Therefore we wrote a simplt basic questionnaire we thougnt
Iowans could handle with relative tase, with built in skip-
statements for nonsmokers, nonquitttrs, etc. The basic question-
naire covered demographic data (25 items), a smoking history
(22 items), health and behavior change before and after ouit:{n;
(45 items), and a special section of 20 questions for students.
Personality scores wtee measured by a separate 137 item test,
the 16PF, which will be described in more detail in the next
report.
0
In return for returning the questionnaire,the cover letter
promised (1) to keep all names from the report and (2) to send
each respondent $5 and a brief summary of his personality prof';e_
(Appendix 7). Not everyone wanted the Personality Report, but
no one turned down the money: we received 1221 ballots from
citizens of voting age for our S5. In contrast, only 760 ballo:s.._-,
were cast in Grsenfield during the 1970 general election.
'ae might have done better using interviewers, but it's ha-:
to say. Our return rate was 90.1%. The re:;:rn ra:e of %a:ional
Analysts and the Opinion Research Cor9or3tion for the 1956 h::i
study was also 90.1:, an amazing coincidence.
~
02
C
00..
~
N
c.n
0 C
C.:
a
--k
N
2
_ 7 _ aa
0 c
~
w
1 ZZ
I
i
f
f
i
,
I
I
I
t
1
t
t
,
Processina the 4ata
The respondent's name did not appear on the questionnaire
when we received it, but the name was printed on the outside of
the return envelope. When the questionnaire was received it was
logged into a record book by name and number, the name was
written on the questionnaire, a check for $5 was clipped to a
thank you letter addressed to the respondent, and a code number
was placed on a Personality Report for the respondent.
The personality sst was then hand scored (using an ovtrlay)
and the personality scores entered on the questionnaire. The
Personality Report was then made out, the check was signed,
appropriate notice was placed in the record book, and the check
and Report was then mailed to Greenfieid.
The time required to process the data this far varied
accarding to the mait volume and work backlog, but it seldom
took more than five working days. A speciil effor't was made
to process the earliest questionnaires within 24 hours, for we
realized that getting a few checks back to Iawa quickly would
dispel any doubts there of the legitimacy of our research.;
In general this procedure proved effective, and we had a
minimum amount of correspondence and confusion about money and
questionnaires.
SA11 checks and corresoondence with Gretnfield bore the POL
letterhead. The sponsor's name was keot secret during the
investigation, although it was known in Grelnfield - and was
so reoorted in both the Adair County Free Press and in the
Des Moines Register -- that one of POL's clients was a tobacco
firm. No POL national panelist lives in Greenfield, al:hougn
ssveral live in Des Moines, and none of the Greenfield nar+es
and addresses were added to the national roster.
a-
.
iz3
CONF~~E11
TjqL
I
f
~
I
I
i
r
I
I
The questionnaireJs were next coded for keypunching. Eacn of
four coding experts processed a several page section of the
questionnaire, reading the answers and entering codes In appro-
priate "office use" spaces on the questionnaire.7 The cards were
keypunched and then verified, a slow operation.e
The data from each questionnaire filled four Hollerith cards,
Card I contained the questionnaire code number, the demographics,
and the special student section. Card II repeated the code-
number and showed the smoking history and some derived personality
scores. Card III repeated the codt number and showed the changes
in food intake, mannerisms, and health problems, plus transformed
personality scores. Card IV contained the code number, the
personality test raw scores, and several miscellaneous measures..
The data from the cards was transferred to a memory disc in
the XOS computer's disc file.
Computer printouts were then made for a number of variables
in which the number of panelists with each score on each column
of the card were tallied against several different classificat'on
codes present on other cards (see Appendix 8). This produced
such outouts as the number of college students who smoked
tht number of smokers with incomes over $10,000, et:.
7The System brokt down at this point - some coded answers on one
part of the questionnaire proved inconsistent with answers in
other parts of the questionnaire. A singie coder, rlading all
Questionnaires,wou1d have caught most of thest inconsistencies
at once and placed them aside. Instead, they continued in the
system causing all kinds of troublt later on.
30ur second major error was in believing that the verification
process was accurate. It proved not to be so, and we wert still
finding keypunch errors as tate as Oecember, 1970.'
9 -
...
.:
25a 12C10350
1 Zq
}
C
I
I
t
I
I
l
I
I
!
t
These outputs were examined carefully for inconsistencles and
impossibilities, and the inconsistencies were then resolved.9
Processing and~interpreting the data took much longer than
we had expected, even with the aid of the high speed computer.
We did not truly appreciate the magnitude of our task, nor the
wealth of output wt would mine, when w* began the study, for
there was no R & 0 computer then, and, in retrospect, we Nere
optimistically naive about computer capabiTities. The tolerance
and good will of the computer stiff, who were engrossed with
the problems of installing their unit and preparing it to
oaerate equipment all over the Research Center, was truly
remarkable.
0
9Txo examoles of inconsistencies: First example: Oo you smoke?
"tlo." What brand? "Winston." Second example: How tall are
you? "7 ft. 6 in." How much do you weigh?."314 lbs." Do you-"
particlpate in any high school sports? "No." In both cases
the cards had been mispunched and the entries wert a column
out of line. In more difficult cases the res0ondents had
actaally made the conflicting statements attributed to them.
We exoecteC to get some fictitious replies from the high scrool
S:udent3 as a practical joke, but we detected none. When we
had a conflict we attemoted to resolve it on the basis of o:her C
directly related questions. If we felt we really didn't xnoW
what the rtsoondent mtant, we threw his data out (thert wtrs
anty a few of these). If we had a bias it was to classify ttit ~
rss:ondtnts as Cold Turkey Day Quitters. Most of the questior.s ~
were quite straight forward, as were the answers, and over 99: C~
reouired no interpretation by us. When our intervention was
r4ouired it almost always turned out to be a case of an impro:er Z
punch.
10 Z501 ZDQ351
Ii5
i
I
f
,
I
I
R E S U L T S
Imolica*.ons of the Results
Thtre are three points to make before presenting the
findings.
First, we have data on such a large proportion of 6rsen-
field's population that our group averages can be considered
population averages rather than sample averages. In a very
real sense our data include all the knowable scores, for it
is unlikely that our non-rtsportdents would tver respond to
anyone else's questionnaire if they didn't respond to ours.
This means that it is unnecessary to employ inferential
statistics in describing the behavior of the people of
Greenfield, for we know their population parameters. It also
puts an extra burden upon the writer and the reader, for if -
all observed differences are real,.it is necessary that we
agret on the importance of a very small difference. In
gentral, we will ignore the trivial differences and put
emphasis only on those of some size.
Second, we are not convinced that it is always reasona5le
to generalize from the Greenfield data to Such theoretical
populations as "all American teenagers" or "male cigarette :
Smokers between the ages of 30 and 39" or to "people who give
up smoking." Greenfield is a small town. It can't be comoared
to the vast megalopolis which stretches from Boston to
aashington. Its people in no way represent a microcosm of the
U.S.A. Further a significant part of the treat:nent variable
involves participation in the movie, which is not reproducibie.-
On the other hand, to the extent that Greenfield is like the
rest of America, it may be possible to generalize to the rest
of America; to the extent that "Greenfield smokers between the
ages of 20 and 29" resemble "smokers in the smali towns of the
West ttorth Central U.S.A.," a more reasonable extrapolation,
Z5012[1a352
12-(-,
f
C
.
L
t
1
it may be possible to generalize to the latter population.
Furthermore, if Greenfield's people do differ from some other
population, that difference is unimportant for our purposes
unless it can be shown to be related to smoking in some way.
For example, if Greenfield's people are taller than the U.S.
average, but smoking happens to be independent of height, the
admitted height difference would not preclude making general-
izations about their smoking. It can be seen the arguments In
favor of and against generalization from our data art not simple
and require soa+e prudence and common sense on the part of the
generalizer.
about quitting, or about personality.
Third, where it does seem reasonable to consider the
Greenfield data as a sample of the U.S., and we make inferences
about a population from this sample, we must be particularly
careful about making "Type I errors." (Youmake a Type I error
when your statistics lead you to believe two groups are differ-
ent, when In fact they are'not.) For example, we have 20
personality variables, 30 subtables for each of the personality
variables, and over 20 column averages per subtable. We could
compare over 120,000 pairs of column average scores if we were
so inclined. By chance we would expect 6000 of these differ-
ences to be so great that they would yield significant F, t,
or x2 statistics at the .05 level of confidence. Obviously,
then, we cannot just browse through our tables looking for
differences among column means, for many of these will be due
to chance alone. Instead, we must restrict ourselves to test-
ing hypotheses founded on some prior notions about smoking,
r
IZ?
CC,ilF
Jr~q~
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
Smoker Psrticioation.
Among the 1335 usable questionnaires we classified 444
as active smokers ia May a figure slightly higher than the
426 referred to in a Des Moines Register article (February 22,
1970), and just below the 461 estimated from a telephone survey
tiken on Cold Turkey Eve. (Our non-usable questionnaires seem
to show an extra 11 smokers, for a total of 455.) 'ahat
happened to these 444 smokers is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Smoker Particioation in Camoaion
Total Number of Smokers in May, 1969 444
a) Signed pledge to quit 178
Did not pledge 214
Didn't answer pledge question 52
b) Made a real gffort to quit 137
Made half-hearted effort to quit 145
Made no effort to quit 159
Didn't answer effort question 3
c) Consider effort successful, stopped for while 96
Smoked much less 35
Smoked a little less 79
Smoked as much as ever 115
No answer (117 of whom didn't try to quit) 119
d) Classified by deed, rather than effort or pledge:
.100:
40r
43.
.
12:
Didn't try to quit completely 273
Ouit in June and July 29 ';
Quit on Cold Turkey Day 137
e) Total Nho ouit in June, July, or on CTD 165 i^.0 ; ~:; ;
?esumed .+i tt+i n 3 weeks 74 4s. S; C 1';
Succsssfut Earned 10 button 32 55.=; (= 20.7;
Successful - Off for 8 months or more 47 2,3 ,.:;CJ 10,:;
f) Cigarette smokers in may, 1969 394 100:
Didri't try to quit 231 64:
Ouit in June or July 23 5:
Ouit on Cold Turkey Day 120 :0;
Resu~+ed ~+i:hin 3 ~reekS 47 12;
:.arned 10 button 73 1a..,
7ff for 8:nonths or more 'a 9.7;
v
2501200354
t
Z~
F
I
I
I
t
I
i
CONFjCE,vTIqL
not all smokerswert willing to sign the piedge to quit
smoking. We have Identified only 173 smokers who answered "1es"
tq our question, "Oid you sign a pledge?" The remainder either
said "no," or did not answer the question. Some of the latter
may have honestly missed the pledge question, as it was embedded
near some pipe smoking questions, or they may have been avoiding
an unpleasant admission that they had broken their pledge. At
any rate, 214 of our respondents deny signing a pledge. These
figures do not jibe with the earlier local figures whicb
indicate that only 127 of the active smokers did not sign a
pledge. We doubt that the local figures were Inflated inten-
tionally. It seems more likely that the local totals contained
some former smokers who were pledging not to resume, etc., and
that some of our respondents have either forgotten signing a
pledge or do not now consider that they actually made a pledge,
whether they signed one or not. Sometimes it''s hrard to take
seriously the act of signing a paper pushed At you by a pretty
young girl in a'crowd of holiday ceTebrants.
The smokers split fairly evenly into three groucs: those
who recall making a real effort to quit, those who recall mak4ng
a half-hearted effort, and those who made no effort at all. for
appearance sake any of these smokers may have cut back their
public consumption out of respect for the image the town was
trying to attain, and some in fact acpear to have concentra:ed
their effort not on quitting but on cutting back their consu:na
tion. Many smokers appear to hive taken the HE'r!recommenda;i :^ Cj
about "smoking less if you can't quit." Still ottiers were
unable to find their exact case in our questions and ans:Ars.
We find, for e~amote, that 6 people who say they didn't stao on
Cold Turkey Day atso.say that they made a real effort to vui:.
Ti,ese ptople are anomalously categorized as "Didn't try to qu':."
-14 -
2501200355
1z5
Cc^~~.~~E,l TJqL
I Table 2 showS the relation between success, degree of efsort,
and stopping among people who were still smoking on the day before
Cold Turkey Day.
TABLE 2
I Effort, Stoooina, and Success
-
~ .
I
Didn't Go Stopped
On Cold Resumed
Within Earn ec
IQ
Cold Turkey Turkey Oay tks
3'a 9u ?~
I Maonitude of Effort ~
Real Effort to Quit 6 103 42 61
i Half Hearted Effort to Qu i t 112 32 28 4
No Effort 158 1 1 0
No Answer to Effort Question (2) (1) (0) (1)
~ Total 278 137 71 ' 66
~
Success of Effort
~ I Quit Completely CTO
1
6
I Smoked Much Less 1 22 19 3
r I Smoked a Little Less 53 25 23 2
~
~ I Smoked as Much 97 13 1a 0
flo Answer to Effort Question (117) (2) (1) (1`,
Total 278 137 71 65
I It is obvious that respondents had different interaretat~ons
,
of our question 065, "During the camoaign, was your effo.r:
successful?" Some people who elsewhere had reoorted that they
had quit for the month here said that they smoked a little less
but bypassed the answer that they had quit comaltt:ly. Our ca::-
r-in their effort was less than a complete success.
~.r
.C
C
C
C..?
button and subsequently resumed smokinq, so that in the long .:~k
3ory for peools who quit for a month is "Earned IO 3ut:on." ,te
don't know whether these people really earned or claimed they
earned an IQ button. We suspect that they did earn their IQ
C
Z501200356
,30
In light of these comments, the actuarial data of Tabie I
on the success of the campaign should be modified slightly:
considering those who did not stop. but made a real or at least
half-hearted effort to cut back thefr consumption, as well as
those who stopped early or on Cold Turkey Day, we find that 284
of the 444 smokers, or 64: of the smokers made some effort to
quit. Of these, 166 actually stopped on or before Cold Turkey
Day (33.4% of all smokers and $8.55 of all who were trling to
quit.)
In reporting participation to the Mayor of Greenfield and
the editor of the Adair County Frea Press we equated Cold Turkey
Quitting with stopping. We.should recognize that particiaation
in the campaign was greater than the stopping data alone would
suggest.
0
On, the other hand, if the percentage of participants was
higher than the ttoaping dati Suggest, the percentage of IQ
button earners was lower. The data of Tabie le show that 56wo
of the quitters received IQ buttons. Based on the larger
number of peopie who made at least a half-hearted effort to.
quit, only 32.4: received IQ buttons. Similarly, if we examine
those still not smoking after 8 months, the figures must again
be modified. In this case we would have to use a differllit ~
Count, for some 16 of those who didn't quit during the campaign
either subsequently quit cold or,tapered down to the point where
they could quit. This brings the total "sti11" off to Gas:er :o
63, (,22.2t of thoSe who made any effort to quit.)
~..
As in the case of the optimist who sees the Cake portion of
NOW
the doughnut and the pessimist who sees only the hole, .rhich set W
of fi?ures we wish to emphasize will depend in part on wna: we .:.
Wan: to ses. ~
c
L
~ft
i3)
I
I
(
.
Because the emphasis of the antismoking campaign is on
stopping, and because the Iowa campaign was based on stopping
Cold Turkey, we have lumped all those smokers who did not stop
on Cold Turkey Day into a single group, called "Didn't Try to
Quit Cold," but it must be recognized that they ware nowhere
near as homogeneous in their quitting behavior astheir group
ti'le would suggest.
Separate tabulations based on the cigarette Smokers alone
yield statistics so similar to those of all smokers that we will
report only tha "all smokers" data in the future. That should
not imply that the quit ratios were the same for pipe, cigar,
and cigarette smokers. They ware not. For example, 740. of the
pipe smokers stopped on or before Cold Turkey Day; and bet-4een .
May and the following Easter there was a 410. reduction in the
number of people who reported smoking cigars'. The size of
these figures does not reflect the aase of giving up the various
forms of tobacco'so much as it reflects the differential quit
rate among men and women. (There ware no women pipe or cigar
smokers in Greenfield.)
TABLE 3
Ouit Rate for Qifr.r!-~t For-gs of Tobac:o
Amono !!on-student Maies under 60
All ac-en
Cioaret::s CiJars P{:e Cilar-a -,..~.~
Total Us4rs (May) 182 (100:) 31 (140;) 23 (100a) 115 I W,..
Didn't Try to Cuit 107 32.3:
14 45.2.".
14
50.0%
99 C
L.
..
lui: in June/July 14 7
7" 1 3
2:5 2 7
2% 6 C
.
Quit CTD 61 33
4% .
16 51
6:
12 .
42
9:
41 22
^ Y G:
.:.
. . _ ./ . .04
~z
Total Quitters 75 41.00. 17 54
95 14 50
0: 47 32
2: c
. . .
.
.
to Button 40 21.9: 14 45 .3; 9 32.2% 22 1;. 0;~k
:ti11 Off 24 13.3% a 25.2% 4 14.3:
:to :e : En :ri e s
ars not indeoendent - some
S-11okers used mors :~a^ ~ne
pr~.duC: type.
25a120a358
~
~
whtn the quit rates among non-student
cc,,l
males under 60
le3rs
old are compartd for the three different product types it can
be seen that there were differences in quit rate, but the
differences were Smaller than would have been observed if the
female cigarette smokers had been included.
As can be seen from Table 3, the product using group most
likely to quit and succetd was that of male cigar smokers, Nni1e
femaie cigarette smokers wtre the least likely. The differencts
among male smokers were sizable, but the female data are the most
startling. The anti-smoking campaign failed to persuade the
women to quit.
We can only conjecture at the reasons for the failure:
---perhaps it's because women are better at running their husbands'
lives than their own: Among single men, under 60 fears old wno
were not students, tht long term success rate was*4.:. compared
to 16.1: among married men...:
--ptrhaps its because busy housewives are less exposed to anti-
smoking arguments, or less responslve to logical argument, or
less apt to participate in community affairs...
---Perhaps its because for years smoking was considtred so
unftminine that only the women who truly needed eded the unknown
rtward effect of smoking wert likely to become smokers. 3t:ause.
of their true need they were less likely to give it up than wert
male Smokers, Some of whom need tobacco and some of whom don'...
-it it not because of their consumption rate: the median .
numbar of Cigartttes smoked by males and females was an i:en!-a;
. _
20 ptr~iay.
It is often suggested that daily number of cigarettes
Smoked Is related to ease of quitting; the less you smo~ce, tne
!asitr it is to stop. We would hypothtsi2e, thertfort, that
CJ
2501200359
i33
r
I
I
f
I
i
I
CCNF/CF'J
r/,4L
given the May consumption figures as our dependent variable, the
mean number of cigarettes smoked in May by people who later quit
woul d be T*ess than the mean for nonqui tters . Further, among the
quitters, the lower mean should be for IQ button winners, whiie
those who resumed would be the heavier smokers; and among the IQ
button winners the lowest mean intax: would be found among those
who were still off the following Easter..
The data an the Greenfield women support this hypothesis
perfectly. All their means fall in the expected order (Table 4).
But the male data offer no such convincing evidence.
TABLE 4
Averace (Mean) Number of Ciaarzttes oer Oay in
-
Didn't Quit on or Resumed 'Earned Still
Try to Stoo 'Before CTD `'aithin 3'+teeks ' 10 3utton' Off
.~...~_
Females 17.6 14.4 16.4 11.4 6.7
Ma1es 23.8 23.8 24.2 23.5 24.1
Although several of the male consumption differences are
in the order predicted, the absolute size of the differences is
so small that it would be imprudent to suggest that they suooor:
the'hypothesis. However, it seems to us that the hypothesis
should be' a general one, not a sex-linked one, and it is SO
apCealing that we are not willing to discard its generality
because we are presented here with one set of data which rvn
in its face. It seems more likely to us that there's sone:nin;
i
ex=eotional about the Oreenfield men or the 6reenfield si:ua:ion.~
~ than that the hypothesis is only extendable to women. ^
..
~ C
~ t'*J C
~ Ln
~
-A 2
t3~
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
i
i
i
cCNFIaEVt1qL
Cicart*.te Tyoes
To the extent that high tar high nicotine cigarettes
either (a) are seTected by people with a grester need to smoke
or (b) are more rewarding or (c) create stronger habits or
(d) have been already abandoned by those health conscious people
who are ready to quit, we would expect a'lower proportion of
successful quitters among high delivery.cigarettes than among
low delivery cigarettes.
The data of Table S summarize the quitting success of
people smoking different types of cigarettes.
TABLE S
Cigarette Typc and 0uittino Success
0
A11 : of 10 % of All Sti11 S os
N OTT Quitters N- Button Quitters Off 14
36 Non-filters (reg) 27 9 25.0 4 45.0 4 11.1
29 Non-filters (king) 21 8 27.6 5 62.5 2 6.3
65 All tionfilters 4! 17 26.2 9 53.0 6 1.2
75 35 King Filters 55 20 26.7 6 30.3 2 2.7
117 100 Filters 71 46 39.3 22 43.0 13 1~.1
192 All HfDelivery 125 66 34.5 28 42.5 1S 7,3
:lon-menthol
10 85 Health 5 5 50.0 3 60.0 0 0
37 100 Health 20 17 46.0 10 53.3 7 12,3
17 25 22 46.7 13 59.?
27 I_ '4=n tho 1 16 1 1 40.7 6 54.5 2
:7 100 'ien tho 1 39 20 33.9 14 70.0 6 1 3, Z
85 SS 31 36.0 20 64.5 ;.O:
v
^
20 -
..r
0
13s
I
CCN,c7,0E'VT1A
L
The proportion of would be quitters was lowest among the
nonfilter and kingfilter brands an-d highest among those smoking
health filters, as predictfd. The percentage of May smokers
I
I
I
t
I
L
,
i
~
~
stiil off at Easter was lowest for the Hidelivery sub-group
and highest for the Lo-delivery sub-group. It is difficult
to assess the importance of the zero In the 85 health filter
column; it is less difficult to assess the 2.7% figure for the
85 kingfilters: those smokers who smoked the traditional filter
cigarettes were among the least likely to quit.
The brands most often abandoned were the brands most
often smoked. Table 6 presents the ten most often abandoned
cigarettes in Greenfield. No Philip Morris brands appear on
this list, because of the Company's low sales in the area. AA
summary of the Philip Morris brands indicates 38 smokers in
Maj, of whom 9 quit, 4 earned IQ buttons and 3 were still off
at Easter.
TABLE 6
The Ten Brands Most Often Given Uo
N Tried to Ouit
20 7
21 7
19 6
21 9
36 14
13 3
29 12
16 10
31 12
20 6
S:ill Otl
1 -
1
0
2
4
2 }+
2 C
4 C
.
5 Ln
C= ~
1 ,A
i3G
I
I
I
t
Consumotion of Snack..Foods and
Beveraoes
Most smokers who try to quit report that eating snacks
helps compensate them for their foregone tobacco pleasures.
In Table 7 are shown the number of people among groups
NEVS (who never became smokers), DTTQ (who continued to smoke
and didn't try to auit in the C:mpaign), and AOFF (who quit in
the campaign and wtrt still off at Easter) who report consuming
snacks and beverages at Easter time. With the exception of the
alcoholic beverage figures, which ars much lower among thost
who never smoked than among smokers, there are no large differ-
ences between the groups.
In Table 8 are listed the number and proportion of A
consumers among the same groups who repo rt that they incr`
their c"sumption between CTD and Easter.
and more ice Cream, to drink more soda pop, more tea, more
coffee, more milk, more fruit juice, and mGre wine than nonsmokers.
The table shows very ciearly that a larger proportion
among the successful quitters reported increases in their
Snack tnd beverage consumption than among the nonsmoking or
smoking groups. For convenience we have expressed the pro-
portional difference between successful quitters and nonsmokers
as the "incrtased consumption ratio." Looking at chewing gum,- '
for example, the ratio says that the proportion of ptopit
reporting increased consumption of chewing gum was six times -
as great as the proportion in a control group of nonsmokers. 1+
The actual figure is 5.73 to 1, but for convenience it is ~
C .
rounded to 6. ~
w The table shows that quitters wert more likely to chew ~
L
mors gum, to !at more salted nuts, more mints, more candy,
.1
. 22 .
137
2501200363
On the other hand, proportions among smokers were very
similar to those among nonsmokers, Surprisingly there are
no sizable differences among the groups in the increased
consumption of beer ind liquor: indeed, if a similar table
was made for the proportion of nonsmokers, nonquitters and
quitters reporting decreases in consumption it would read Beer
8.7%. 12.4: and 15.6%; and Liquor 6.9%, 11.8: and 15.6:. The
decreased consumption ratio is 2:1 for both beverages.
This observation was unexpected. Perhaps the quitters
h:ve taken this opportunity to change several of their minor
vices at once, or perhaps, no longer smoking, and conscious
of a persistent desire to smoke, they are avoiding social
gatherings where smoking and drinking take place. It is also
possible that they wish to stay off smoking and have learned
from experience that alcohol weakens their resolve. A sad
picture is painted of the quitter who used to enjoy himself
at a party, now restricted to coffee, fruit juice and coke,
turning his back on the swingers in the kitchen in order to
hover around the candy and peanut tray among the staid old
gossips in the parlor. After one o10t-~ro such experiences he
probably quits partying altogether.
1tFor a criticism and discussion of respondent accuracy to
these questiuns, see Appendix 3.
N
Un
_C~
' 2 3 ' tV
0
0
~
~
0
L
z '
i3b
I
I
V
(
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Number and Percentaae of Peoole
Who CoRsume Snack Foods and Beveraces
NEYSI OTTQZ AOFF3
H758 N-278 ('1=a7 )
Gum
Salted Nuts
Candy Mints
Other Candy
Ice Cream
Soda Pop
Tea
Coffee
Milk
Fruit Juice
Wine
Beer
Liquor
TA3LE 7
- - - -
565 74.5 207 74.5 39 83.0
626 83.0 221 79.5 43 91.5
606 79.9 194 69.8 35 74.5-
708 93.4 249 89.6 44 93.6
706 93.1 251 90.3 43 91.5
571 75.3 230 82.7 40 85.1
589 77.7 190 68.3 33 70.2
558 73.6 258 92.8 41 82.6
641 85.6 239 86.0 44 93.6
697 92.0 244 87.8 42 39.4
250 33.0 164 59.0 22 46.8
208 27.4 185 66.7 .32 68.1
233 30.7 186 67.0 32 68.1
1NEYS a Never a Smoker
sDOTQ = Didn't Try to Quit
3AOFF Would-be quitters who were still off at Easter.
- 24 -
0
~ ~39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 8
Number and Psrcentace of Consumers
Reoortina Thfy Increased Their Consumotion
Gum
Salted Nuts
Candy Mints
0tfler Candy
Ice Cream
Soda Pop
Tea
Coffee
Mi 1 k
Fruit Juice
Wi ne
Beer
Liquor
NE'/S i
Number x
Increased
Use UseTs
45 565 8.0 21 207 10.2
10 629 1.6 6 221 2.7
9 606 1.5 7 194 3.6
19 708 2.7 3 249 1.2
31 706 4.4 6 851 2.4
45 571 7.9 14 230 6.1
34 589 5.8 9 190 4.7
48 558 11.6 21 258 8.1
58 641 9.0 17 239 7.1
65 647 9.5 14 244 5.7
12 250 4.8 6 164 3.7
17 208 8.2 9 185 4.9
17 233 7.3 7 186 3.8
._.~..
OTTOZ AOFF3
Number x Number
Increased Increased
Use Users Use Users
18 39 46.2
7 43 16.3
5 35 14.3
11 44 25.0
8 43 13.5
7 40 17.4
6 33 18.2
12 41 29.3
6 44 13.6
9 42 21.4
4 22 13.3
3 32 9.4
3 32 9.4
Ratio: 5 AOFF divided by S NE'!S
I'lE'lS Never a Smoker ,
200'0 Didn't Try to Quit
3A0FF -'aould-be quitters who were still off at Easter.
- 25 -
Increased
Consumo :i on
Ratio'
( q~und ed )
I ~'G
c
CN
I
r
I..
TAStF 3
Percentace of Peoole
Showina Differtnt Mannerisms
: Showina the Habit at All
(
f
i
,
Nervous `iannerisms "
Many would-be quitters exhibited increases in their nervous
mannerisms under the strain of doing without cigarettes after
Cold Turkey Day. Even after 8 months (:) many of those who quit
successfully reported that they wEre still wiggling, jiggling,
and twiddling more than they were before Cold Turkey Day.
Frequency counts among those who report having the mannerism
are given In Table 9 for four groups of people: NEYS, DTTq,
RW3W, and AOFF (Group RW3W contains quitters who resumed smoking
within 3 weeks).
Aboutthe same proportion of each group reports having anx
given Mannerism, except that quitters who are still off are much
more likely to be match chewers.
NEVS
(N=758)
Mannerism ~ Z ~
Foot Tapping 33.0
Finger Tapping 36.7
Psncil Twirling 33.1
Foot Jiggling 33.5
t4a tch Che'.ri ng 22.4
Lip Biting 29.0
'1ail Biting ' 24.6
Thumb Twiddling- 15.3
Knuckle Cracking 14.2
iaeslmed within 3 Weeks
OTTQ RW3W1 ACF=
(N-278) (Na74)
(~~~47)
w ~
27.7 33.8 36.2
30.9 40.5 44.7
20.9 29.7 31.9
32.7 37.8 21.3
30.9 33.8 55.3
25.9 28.4 17.0
17.3 24.3 14.9
12.2 16.2 14.9
13.7 16.2 10.5
- 26 -
t 4I
TABLE 10
I
I
F
t
Percentaae of Peoole with a Mannerism Who Re:or*.
It Is Now More Freouent than Before
X Showina the Habit at All
NEVS ,WW AOFF
(Ft~58) (N~78) (N74) (tt=47)
w .0.
0
Foot Tapping 6.4
Finger Tapping 6.1
Pencil Twirling 5.6
Foot Jiggting 3.5
Match Chewing 2.4
Lip 8iting 7.7
Nail Biting 6.4
Thumb Twiddling 3.4
Knuckle Cracking 13.0
~.~ ~..~
5.2 ' 4.0
10.5 10.0
10.3 9.1
4.4 10.7
5.3 24.0
5.6 9.5
6.2 11.1
(0.9) (0.0)
5.3 8.3
23.5
33.3
26.7
40.0
50.0
37.5
14.3
42.8
20.0
0
Among the people with the mennerisms(Table 10), successful
quitters are much more likely to report them now more frequent
than are the other groups. Making a mannerism ratio like a
consumption ratio, we find that the numbers range from 1.5 to
1 through 20 to 1. Most of these differences are quite impressive.
A word of caution: it's tempting to interpret the exsmoker
as showi ng a veri tabi e S t. 'li tus Dance of twi tchi ng manneri sms .
Match chewing aside, It's not that they've acquired new nervous
habits, It's just that they're doing their old nervous habits ~
more often. None of these mannerisms art really bad, or even ~
very annoying, when keot under control. But
out of control among many exsmokers.
- 27 -
apparently they
Se; C
~
i ~ ~~
~ CM
~ W
i M
I CO
itZ
Chanves in Consumotion of "dicinss
f
I
I
I
t
,
So few quitters reported an increase in drug taking that
comparisons between the groups are Meaningless. However, the
data are inctuded as Tables 11 and 12 because the very paucity
of data bears on the hypothesis that quitting smoking leads to
heal th probl ems and/or taxtri ng.-
The tables art similar in form to those of the increases
in snacks and beverages, except that the ratios have been
omitted.
It may be noted that group NEVS consumes mort laxatives
than the others: laxative consumption is age related in Green-
field, the consumption figures being: laxatives are used by '
14.5% of the high school-and college students; 20.7% of the
non-students under 40;30.4: of the people betwetn 40 and 59;
and 50.9% of the people over 60. Exaraining the subtable f4r
all non-students under the age of 60 we eliminate much of this
laxative-taking difference, the figures being 28.2% of the
NE'/5 group (88/312); 25.3106 of the DOTQ group_(51/201); and
24.3 of the AOFF group (9/37).
This brings up the question: may not some of the other
~ consumotion data be also affected by agt? Undoubtedly they are.
But most generalitations based on the figures of Tables 8, 10,
and 12 will stiil hold. For example, the increased consumttion ~
f ratios for the snacks and beverages of Table 8, tf based onll
^
1 on non-st:,dents under 60, would be: 11 to 1; 11 to 1; 9 to 1; C
14 to 1; 6 to 1; 3 to 1; 3.5 to 1; 2.5 to 1; 4 to 1; 3 to 1; ~
10 to 1. For betr and liquor, which showed no proportionatell
~
greater increase among all respondents.the ratios ars 10.7 and C
I
I 10.3 for the non-students under 60. As before, there were more V
- 28- 2501200369
,~~
TABLE 11
Number of Medicine Takers As
A Percentace of Each Grouo
NEYS
N758
.
a 'OTTQ
1t=278 )
% AOFF
( ,i=47 )
.,~..
.
.
~
Weight Control Drugs 61 8.1 24 8.6 2 4.3
Laxatives
272
35.9 79 28.4 12 25.5
Pep Pills 39 5.1 23 8.3 3 6.4
Aspirin ' 640 84.4 220 79.1 41 87.2
Sleeping Pills 93 12.3 30 10.8 4 3.5
Tranquilizers 113 14.9 52 18.7 7 14.9
0
WLE 12
Number of Increased !iedicine Takers Anonr! Users
NElS OTTO AOr=
Increase User . Incriase
. User ; Increas, Us=.- .
,
- - ~.~ s -
'.Jcight Control
Drugs
3
61
4.9
1
24
4.2
0
Laxatives 9 272 3.3 3 79 3.8 0 12
Pso Pills 2 39 5.1 1 23 4.3 0 3
t.spirin 18 640 2.8 8 220 3.6 1 owa = 2
~ ..
S;:eping Pills 6 93 6.5 1 30 3.3 1 .. .
25=
Tranquilizers 8 113 7.1 3 52 5.8 0 ~7
.~
~
.~
C
a
250 12003?0
_ 29 .
.~
lky
quitters who also reported drinking less beer and liquor, the
percentages for the three groups being 6.15, 21.9%, and 17.9%
for beer, and 6.35, 12.55, and 17.4% for liquor.
. It will be noted that these figures are almost a11 higher
than those in Table 8.
As a ruie, the tables press - nted in the body of this manu-
script were chosen either because they represent the general
case or because they ar called for by specific hypotheses.
An objector who argues that we have carefully chosen data which
favors the industry, and who argues that use of a different
subtable (i.e. a different age or sex grouping) would weaken
our presentation, will usually find that the choice of a differ-
ent subtable will strengthen our presentation rather than weaken
it. Sie have not presented the most favorable subtables, per se,
because to do so would be as unethical as to present only the
most unfavorable.
Minor Health Poblen+s
Not only do quitters still show nervous mannerism increases,
but they also report being bothered by a variety of minor health
problems and symptoms. Table 13 shows the proportion of people :
who report having each symptom, and as before, Table 14 shows
the proportion of the complainers who Say their problem is now
worse.
For most symptoms each group is about as likely to reoor:
having some trouble, but note the larger percentage of forner
smokers who - eight months later (:) - report being restless and
tense, ill-tempered, and bothered by weight gain. ~
~
N .~
CM
~
~ C
CZ
- 30 - ~
I it 5
Next, as before,' consider the proportion of people with
health symptoms who say that the symptoms have become worse.
For a few symptoms the proportions dre simil4r for the thret'
groups of Tib1e 14. The asttrisksd items, however, are all much
higher for the quitters than thase who never smoked or didn't quit.
All the intismoking publicity we have seen either ignores
these symptoms or promises that they will gradually disappear
leaving the exsmoker feeling htppier, hesTthier, and heartier.
Such was definitely not the case in Greenfield, where the list
of complaints is long and impressive: Successful quitters report
still being more troubled with ill ttmper than they used to be;
more troubled with loss of energy,being restless and tense,
feeling blue and depressed, being apt to doze off.
TABLE 13
Proportion with the SYmotom
NEVS OTTQ AOFF
N758) ~t278) y&47)
Trouble Sleeping 52.9 44.6 51 .1
*Rtstless and Tense 57.8 58.3 70.2
*Blue or Depressed 59.4 57.6 51.1
'I1 l tempered 53.2 57.2 70.2
Headaches 56.9 56.1 57.4
Loss of Energy 57.7 51 .8 46.8
Apt to Doze Off 45.2 41 :7 57.4
Trouble Concentrating 59.6 52.2' 61.7
Diarrhea 19.4 17.6 21.3 f~+
Constipetion
38.3
30.9
23.4 r
Loss of Appetite 29.7 33.5 29.8 C
Upset Stomach
49.2
52.5
59.6 G.~
w
"aeiqht Gain 59.8 50.7 78.7 CZ
31 - C
c
Z5Q12Q037Z
i tr LP
CGNfiI'CE
, vT~~c
I
I
f
I
I
i
TABLE 14
Percent Symotom Showers Who Reoort More Troubls
ro
(V~S OTTO AOFF
Trouble Sieeping 10.5 9.7 8.3
'Restless and Tense 11.0 17.3 39.4
*Slue or Depressed 10.7 10.6 25.0
*I11-tempered 5.7 11.3 36.4
Headaches 4.2 5.1 3.7
'Loss of Energy 12.1 6.9 25.0
*Apt to Oose Off 15.7 8.6 29.6
Trouble Concentrating 10.4 5.8 13.8
Diarrhea 6.1 2.0 (0.0)
'Constipation 4.8 3.5 27.3
Loss of Appetite 7.6 11.8 (0.0)
Upset Stomach 7.2 8.2 10.7
"deight Gain 10.8 12.3 64.9
Hone of the quitters reported any loss of appetite, nor
were any of them troubled by diarrhea.
of AOFF said more. " .
0
When asked if they now ate more or less, 3.55 of NE'1S,
4.404 of DTTQ, and 36.2% of AOFF said more. When asked if they
-'
exercised more or less, 13.8% of 'IEYS, 7.1% of DTTQ, and 17.0%
ex tra food at meat time and the snacks
of candy, nuts, ice cream, and toke had its predictabie conse- C
quenCe: the quitters report more trouble with canstipation, and O.
much more trouble with weight gain. ~j
all
Ln Cc
32 - ~ ~
The net effect of the
W
- -
.,,J
w
IkI
eGNF7'OZN77AL
This is not the happy picture painted by the Cancer Society's
antismoking commercial which shows an exuberant couple leaping
In the air and kicking their heels with joy becavsethey've kicked
the habit. A more ippropriate commercial would show a restless,
nervous.constipated husband bickering viciously with his*bitchy
wife, who is nagging him about his slothful behavior and growing
waistline.
The quitters who weighed more at Easter than they had 8
months before, weighed 13k lbs. more. We suspect that many of
these people had gained even more weight, but had dietest back
somewhat. Counting the handful of quitters who lost weight with
those who gained or showed no change we find that the 47-man grouo
gained 234 pounds - or enough for two whole people which averages
out to 5 pounds each. People who quit for two months, then
0
resumed, showed about a 3pound weight gain. Those who quit for
a few weeks and then resumed showed about a half pound gain. But
those who didn't tryt'o quit showed a siz ounce weight 1oss, and
those who had never tried a cigarette or had never taken up
smoking lost about two ounces.
Other people in Greenfield gained weight over the winter,
but among nonsmokers and nonquitters the gainers didnat gain as
much, were much less common, and were balanced by about the Sa^e
number of losers (see Table 15).
r1j
t.n
a
~
~ C
C
C
r.
.
33 - C
~ cc
W C
I ~C&
TAaLE 15
1
t
i
t
r
eiaht Gains (in lbs.L
W
_ Grout
'
tn r
bs.
Av . No
Cha
nae
Losers, Lb~s,.,, Av_ Avg.
(Lbs.
~
_
Never Tried, and
Tried by Don't Smoke 97 955 9.85 415 96 1030 10.7 -.11
Didn't Try to Quit 32 293 9.16 207 30 388 12.9 -.35
Quit Two Weeks 17 177 10.41 60 11 140- 12.7 +.42
Off Few ttonths,
Resumed 8 90 11.25 17 2 12 *6.0 +2.89
Still Off 22 292 13.27 20 5 5a 11.6 4.98
0
To summarize: 47: of the quitters gained weight, and they
averaged a gain of 13k lbs. That's enough weight to put two
inches or more on the avtr,age waistline, which couid force a
man irtto the next suit size and might even send a woman into
the se d larger dress size.
CZ
i 4-y
Appendix 1
EXCERPTS FROM EARLIER MEMOS ON
EVENTS OF COLD TURKEY DAY
`Greenfield was selected as the principaT localt for shooting
the film because of Its picturesque public square, courthouse,
and size. United Artists, as a publicity gambit, offered the
town $6,000 to carry out a mass withdrawal from all forms of
smoking. The city council accepted the challertqe, organized a
local committee and by Cold Turkey day, Auqust 6, had won tne.
enthusiasm and support of most of the 2,200 residents. Cold
Turkey day was the high water mark of the century for Grttn-
field, Iowa. A"kookyd costume contest', a frog jumping contest,
a balloon release, a rock music exhibition, "crazy" sidewalk
vending stalls, a fire hose fight among city leaders, and a
bon fire of cigarettes in the public square all marked the
occasion. Senator Frank Moss of Utah, Miss Ameri,can Teenaqer,
Dick Van Oyke, Bob Newhart and other film. co-iony dignitaries
participated in the formal ceremonies In the public sQuart.
The American Cancer Society, American Heart Assn., H.E.W.,
:eventh Day Adventists, and other organizations had rtartsen-
tatives on the scene, as well as fringe and exploitive enter-
prises such as S.T.O.P., "Cancerettes" Maqazine, Smoke Stoooers,
Inc. and others. Daniel Horn, key psychologist of H.E.W.'s
_
anti-smoking activitits, had two of his staff present, one of
whom conducted a survey by distributing survey forms througn
the local committee. There is no indication of intent to follow through."
crom Memo to Dr. H. Waktham
Feb. 2, 1970, from R. Fagan
and W. Dunn
~ -
I5o --
r
I
I
f
I
i
I
I
I
Appendix 1 (Continued)
Cp~FIo
Fyrjq`
"The campaign had its effects before it began officially. Many
peoole quit - or cut back - or prepared'themselves to quit -
during the months of June and July when the idea of quitting as
a group was under discussion in the town council and among the
populace in general. Our tabulation, therefore, includes people
who stopped during this period as well as those who went cold
turkey with the town on Cold Turkey Oay, August 8.
"CoTd Turkey Oay had other overtones than merely an anti-smoking
rally. It had its roots in a prior mid-summer event called
Crazy Day, a mid-August fun festival. Many of the Cold Turkey.
Oay doings Kere relics of the Crazy Oay era - the free balloons,
nickel movie, jazz festival and block dance, the firthose fight
betwten the Jaycees and the volunteer fire department, etc.
when the town went cold turkey, a lot of it was in fun, and many
peoplt "quit" who had no real intention of quitting but were just
going rlong with the gag. Mhen later queried an our question-
naire, this accommodating group didn't always list itself tn the
"I tried to quit group,' but instead reported that although they
had not attempted to quit, they had tried not to smoke in public
because they kntw others were trying to quit. The people of
Greenfield are decent, straightforward, and likable, and many of
them stoically went without wanted cigarettes in order that they
not tempt the struggling would-be quitters.
"The Greenfield anti-smoking campaign lasted for a month. The^
picture, Cold ~Tu~rkfy. , was being filmed; the entire community was
coooerating; uFpTlHealth; the American Cancer Society; band- _
wagon riders of various types were beating the anti-cigarltte
drum. Great emphasis was laid upon not resuming smoking durin;
this 30-day period.
"Af:3r an appr0oriate ceremony in which 10 buttons were aasst?.
out lavishly (while neighbors made occ3sional snide remarks about whsther they were deserved), the
campaign was over and lif3 '
got back to normal In Gretnfield.
looa34s:11
2501200377
15~
Appendix I (Continued)
"'aith the intense pressure now off tht former smokers, the real
value of the campaign was now tested by the day to day strains
and stresses of normal living. Cigarettes had never really been
unavailable in Greenfietd, as they wtre unavailable in the
mythical town of Eagle Rock, the community of the film, but they
had not betn as evident as they are in most American communities.
During the Cold Turkey festivities somE stores stopped selling
cigarettes entirely, others draped their cigarttte displays in
black crepe or curtained them behind black sliding drapes, still
others moved them to inconspicuous store locations. Cigarette
advertising disappeared entirtly. Even today tht leading drug-
store does not handle tobacco. tn the restaurant next to the
bar there is a Reynolds display unit holding a lonely half dozen
packages of cough drops instead of the 200 packs of cigarettes
it might otherwise have held. But carton sales at the Super
Value store have shown a strong increase since the dog days of
August. ;
"Tgnoring tntirtly the question of how great an attrition the
smoking ranks would have suffered before the Surgeon General's
Reportor without the Cold Turkey hullabaloo, I would like to
point out that this was a aaaximum effort of the antt-cigarttte
crusaders. They roll.od out their ~~'q q'ns: senators, movie
stars, governors, physicians, church and social groups. They
kep uo the barrage for a full month. The populice was almost
entirely absorbed in the effort, in the crusade, and in tne film.
The people were considerate, well meaning, attentive, and cooper
ative."
From Memo to Ors. Dunn and fagan
May 15, 1970, from F. J. 2yan
N
(J1.
C
Q
~ C
~ C
0 C.~
0 a
w ~
__%j
aa
~+ -
I52-
---
