Product Design
Smoker Psychology
Abstract
Compiles and summarizes the status of January, 1976 projects.
Fields
- Author
- Dunn, William L., Jr., Ph.D. (PM Smoker Psychology Principal Scientist 1970s-80s)Principal scientist at PM during the 1970s and 1980s, nicknamed the "Nicotine Kid." Supervised Victor DeNoble, Paul Mele, Carolyn Levy and others. Led "smoker psychology" programs for PM.
- Jones, Barbara W. (PM Behavioral Research Asst. Scientist, 1974)Assistant Scientist at Philip Morris working on the Behavioral Research Program in 1974.
- Levy, Carolyn J., Ph.D. (PM Youth Smoking Prevention Sr.VP (1998-2002))Carolyn Levy is a long time Philip Morris scientist who has intimate knowledge of smoker behavior, psychology and PM's addiction studies. Studied and reported at PM on smoker psychology, 1974-75. Studied the role of nicotine in reinforcing smoker behavior in 1976 (1003293201). Levy also has knowledge of the importance of the youth market to future cigarette sales. In a Mar. 31, 1981 PM report Levy wrote, "Today's teenager is tomorrow's potential regular customer...The smoking patterns of teenagers are particularly important to Philip Morris." (1003636640) Appointed Assistant Director of Consumer Research at PM in 1988; Sr. VP Marketing and Sales Information in 1995; Was Sr. VP of PM's Youth Smoking Prevention Programs 1998.
- 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.
- Hypothesis
- Measuring human smoking behaviorMeasuring the effects of changes in human smoking behavior on intake of nicotine and smoke constituents.
- Nicotine transport, transfer, and uptakeDesign changes which alter nicotine delivery or effect how the product causes and maintains dependence, including transfer of nicotine from tobacco to smoke, and uptake into the body.
- Smoke constituent testingDevelopment of methods for measurement of gas and particulate yields in mainstream and sidestream smoke.
- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Use of tobacco processing/ blendsModification of tobacco products through changes in tobacco processing and use of blends, and measuring effects on dependence, behavior, and toxicity.
- Keyword
- Attribute perception ratings
- Behavioral effects (Behavioral pharmacology)Addiction behavior, withdrawal, and measured nicotine effects
- Consumer acceptability (Consumer preference)
- Free nicotine (Unprotonated or unionized nicotine)
- Human testing
- Low delivery (Reduced delivery)
- Nicotine delivery (Smoke nicotine or nicotine yield)
- Puff count
- Strength attributes
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Additive
- Nicotine citrate
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Total particulate matter
- Design Component
- Pressure drop (PD, Resistance to draw (RTD), Flow rate or Draft)
- Denicotinized tobacco
- Named Organization
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.
- Product Opinion Lab (industry-funded)
- Brand
- Kent (Lorillard)
- Marlboro (PM)
- Winston (RJR)
- Subject
- additives
- Blends (Design)
- Compensation (Measures)
- Puff Count (Measures)
- T/N Ratios (Measures)
- Test/Consumer Preference (Testing)
Document Images
CHARGE NUMBER: 1600
PROGRAM TITLE: Smoker Psychology
PROJECT LEADER: W. L. Dunn. Jr.
PERIOD COVERED: January 1-31, 1976
DATE OF REPORT: February 10, 1976
Project Title: Smoke Inhalation Study
Written by: Carolyn Levy
Our new apparatus which allows the subject to puff on a
cigarette while his face is in the mask is almost operational.
We are remaking the rubber masks in order to give the subjects
better access to the mouthpiece.
In order to drt,~rmine if the deli,very of a cigarette is
reduced by the new apparatus, two Marlboro monitors were smoked
through the apparatus on the twenty-port smoking machine. For
It comparison purposes, two monitors were also smoked through the
regular smoking profile recorder mouthpiece. The TPM del.iveries
(17 ff 38 2 d bl
)
3
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pu s
were , an
8.
mg. Thus, we get compara e
deliveries with the two different pieces of apparatus. In
addition, t~hese deliveries are not appreciably different from
what would be expected'from smoking t:he monitors in the regular
fashion on the smoking~ machine.
Our next study will again use R&D smokers. Cigarettes
deliivering 18, 15.7 and 13.3 mg of tar have been made, holding
puff counts and RTD's approximately constant.
Project Tit1!e: Regulator ldenti,fication Program
Wrttten by: Carolyn Levy
We are ready to begin our first attempt to identify nicotine
regulators and non-regulators among our smoking student populati'on.
In selecting our initial subjects we hypothesized that thcse who
smoked more than 30:cigarettes per day of a high delivery brand
(>15 mg tar),would be more likely to regulate than those who
smoked less than 10 cigarettes per day of a comparable brand.
Thus we have two groups: likely regulators and likely non-
regul'ators.
In order to measure dai,ly nicotine intakes, the subjects will
smoke at home and save butts for three weeks. During Week 1 they
® will smoke their own brands. During Weeks 2 3 3 they will smoke
highand low delivery procucts in a COunterbalanoed order. The
relevant dependent varitbl¢t are number smoked per day and the
nicotine residual In the butts. We expect that daily nicotine
intikes will be more product-dependent for non-regulators and more
product independent for regulators.
I
I
A
After this butt saving period, the smokers will come to the
lab for four sessions. Session 1 will be used to familiarize the
subjects with procedures and apparatus. During Sessions 2-4 we
will measure their smoking behavior while smoking own brand, high
and low delivery products. In order to reduce the number of
variables that are free to vary in the smoking situation, we will
tcll our subjects when they will! smoke a cigarette, how many puffs
they may take, and where along the rod these puffs will be taken.
We want to find out if we can "force" our potential regulators to
modify their puff volumes. Inhalation volumes. and/or smoke reten-
tion times in order to obtain their usual nicotine dose. On the
other hand, we do not expect the potential non-regulators to modify
their smoking behavior under these circumstances. When not smoking.
all subjects will be occupied with time filling tasks.
This initial study will enable us to assess the relevance of
consumption data to regulation. That is, are heavy smokers more
likely to regulate than light smokers? In addition, we would like
to determine other factors tlat are correlated with regulation so
as to Improve our ability to predict which smokers will be regulators.
Project Title: Smokin of Nicotine Free Cigarettes
Written by: Carolyn Levy
Due to a delay in equipment set-up we have been unable to
obtain denicotinized tobacco. Hopefully we can begin this study
in one or two months.
As an alternative to denicotinized tobacco, we have looked
into the possibility of having cigarettes made from a strain of
tobacco that is naturally low in nicotine. Our comparison ci'ga-
rette would also be made of this tobacco with nicotine citrate
added to bring the nicotine content up to "normal." This tobacco
shou`d'be available by the end of February.
Project Title: Annual Monitoring of Cigarette Preferences
Written by: F. J. yan
As a preliminary test of our ballot and procedures, five non-
menthol cigarettes - delivcring 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20 mg FTC tar
an&.6, .7, .8, 1.0, and 1.2 mg nicotine - were sent to 300 RP3
panelists who rated them for acceptability. Usable replies were
received from,232 (1775) of the panel.
A prelimdnary analysis of returns based on inco-mplete data
suggests that the differences in ratings were smaLl, as seen in
,
Table 1, but illustrative.
E
tiasning i ig-nLs . tiv-ea thrcu_r, transluceri t ; ! C . in a d.:r~.
room - so that not much can be discerned ex~c~t light flash_s.
In the verbal learning experiment two types of stimuli are
emol!oyed: very low meaningful nonsense syllables (e.g. TOY,
YAK, BEP) or highly meaningful words presented in random order
but r presenting several different classes (e.g. NAVAHO,
APACH~l LION, TIGER).
Table 1
Mean Acceotability Ratings
ryC dels
Panel Own Cigarette
N Characteristics 8 mg 11 mg 14 mg 17 mg 20 mg (unsmoked)
84 Low Delivery 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.2 5.6 7.7
(incliudes Kent)
120, High Delivery 5.5 6.0 5.9 6.1 6.0 8.0
(204) All non-menthol, 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.8 7.8
The panel as a whole gave the unmarked cigarettes (taken as
a group) the ratings of 5.8. where 5.0 "'neither like nor dislike'
and 6.0 ="like slightly." (In contrast, they rated their own
brand, which they did not smoke, at 7.8. where 7.0 ^'like moder-
ately" and'8.0 = "like very much.")
Individual cigarettes varied little from the overall mean
when the smokers were not differentiated by customary delivery
Own Cigarette
8_mg, 11 mg l4 mg 17 mg 20 mg (unsmoked)
5.2 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.1 8.0
5.2 5.8 5.8 5.8 6.1 8.0
6.0 5.7 5.9 5.0 5.5 7.6
60, Low Delivery 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.3 5.7 7.6
(excliudes Kent)
level, sex, etc. But these vari~ables do appear to affect ratings.
Thus, the 84 low delivery smokers (including Kent smokers) gave
higher ratings to the 3 low delivery products than t. the 2 high
delivery products, with the lowest delivery (8 mg) cigarette
getting the highest mean rating. But the 120 high delivery
smokers gave the 8 mg cigarette their lowest mean rating. with
the other four being essentially the same.
Low N's make the ratings from individual brand smokers rather
unstable, but we show the data from Marl!boro, Winston and Kent
smokers in Table 2 because of our special interests in the sub-
groups:
and acceptabil',ity decr_ases.
A technical report is being written.
We infer that Kent smokers more closely resemble low delivery
smokers than Marlboro or Winston smokers - because they gave a
high rating to the 8 mg cigarette and low ratings to the 17 and
20 mg models - while the Marlboro and Winston smokers downgraded
the 8 mg modell and gave a high rating to the higher models.
For that reasoA we have grouped smokers of the 16.3 mg Kent
with the smokers of low delivery brands in Table 1. Kent, of
course, has a low delivery image.
Ratings based onisex, age, years smoking. etc., will be
strongly affected by brand (and vice versa) so that subcells
would have to be examined to show differences. and with the small
N in this preliminary test that woul!d make Tittle sense.
Project T!itlie: Personality and Stimulus Deprivation Study
Written by: F. 3. yan
Project Title: Low DelIvery arettes and Increased Nicotine
to ar at os, III:
aritten by: Barbara Jones
Two RP3 tests (74-088 and 75-191) found that increasing
nicotine to tar (N/T) ratios from the .07 level with nicotine
citrate spray increases the subjective strength of low delivery
cigaret~tes. Additionally, there was an indication that t~hese
increases in strength were accompanied by increased acceptability.
However, the data suggested that caution should be exercised
such that N/T ratios are not increased to the extent that the
increases in acceptability associated with moderate increases
in N/T ratio are lost.
A third N/T ratio study was conducted using the National P0L
panel. Two experimental cigarettes in the 10 mg tar range with
NIT ratios of.07 and .09 were tested with a Marlboro control
using the multiple monadic testing method. The test was sent to
800 panelists, 400 85 mm Marliboro smokers and 4C0 other 85 mm
regular filter smokers, and 392 usable returns were received.
Acceptability and strength scale ratings were analyzed by means
i
of separate one-way analyses of variance. Analyses were performed
for the total panel and for breakouts by brand, sex and consumption.
In instances where significant (p<.05) overall differences were
found, Duncan's Range Test was performed to make individual coca-
parisons between mean ratings.
The results of the strength data analyses were straightforward.
For the total panel and all major breakouts. the 10 mg tar ciga-
rette with added nicotine and the Marlboro control (18.3 mg tar,
1.10 m nicotime) were equal in strength and were signifi'cantly
(p<.053 stronger than the other 10 mg cigarette. The means for
the total panel are shown below.
Marlboro .07 .09
Ccntrol N/T N T
St'rength (N391) 5.29 4.49 5.09
The acceptability data analyses were more difficult to
interpret. T!he mean..acceptabillity ratings for the total panel
and various subgroups are as follows:
Marlboro .07 .09
N Control N/T N/T
Total Panel 392 5.86 5.39 5.54
Males 220 5.71 5.41 5.46
Females 169 6.05 5.38 5.62
Marlboro 85 161 5.86 5.21 5.70
Other 85 mm RF 134 5.98 5.50 5.47
<10 ciigt:;./day 20 5.45 5.25 4.90
10,19 cigts./day 50 5.56 5.14 5.10
20-29 cigts./day 138 6.04 5.50 5.54
30+ ciig:ts./day 184 5.86 5.39 5.73
For the total panel and most of the subgroups the two 10 mg
tar cigarettes were equally acceptable and the Marlboro control
was rated significantly (p<.05).hiyher in acceptability. The two
subcroups that d'iffer firom this general trend are Marlboro smokers
and sm,okers who smoke 30 or more cigarettes a day. Why should
Marltoru snokers rate the 10 ^y tar cigarette with added nicotine
as eQ^al in acceptability to a Marlboro control while other ssokers
do not? Since the other breakout with similar results was the
over 30 a day consumpti,on category, it seemed reasonable to do
analyses of the Marlboro smokers with consumption breakouts.
Although the number in each breakout was small, the trend Indicated
that acceptability ratiny of the 10 mg cigarette with added nlcotine,
relative to the MarTboro control, increased as the number of
cigarettes smoked per day increased. Although analyses will
be performed to help clarify the relationships involved, it
seems that daily consumption is an important variable.
It could be suggested that the people who consider the
10 mg tar cigarette with added nicotine to be as acceptable
as the Marlboro are people who smoke, at least in part, for
nicotine. It seems that the Regulator Identification Program
currently underway in the laboratory may provide some informa-
tion that will be helpful in explaining the results. More work
needs to be done in the area of nicotine/tar ratios in low
delivery cigarettes, perhaps with some studies in which we
provide smokers with cigarettes for several weeks and collect
information on their smoking behavior using various smoke intake
measures.
Data collection is continuing. Data have been collected
for 45 college student subjects.
Projec*. Ti`le: Nicotine Influence on Aa_aressivity in the Betta
5 lendens
Written by: W. .L Dun
. : 's .
