Date: 10 Feb 1976
Length: 6 pages
Jump To Images
Length: 6 pages
Jump To Images
Compiles and summarizes the status of January, 1976 projects.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- Nicotine citrate
- Smoke Constituent
- 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)
- Kent (Lorillard)
- Marlboro (PM)
- Winston (RJR)
- Blends (Design)
- Compensation (Measures)
- Puff Count (Measures)
- T/N Ratios (Measures)
- Test/Consumer Preference (Testing)
Page 1: hvy18e00
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
Page 2: hvy18e00
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.
Page 3: hvy18e00
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:
Page 4: hvy18e00
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
Page 5: hvy18e00
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,
Page 6: hvy18e00
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 .