Product Design
Cigarette Smoking, Health, and Dissonance (Project Libra)
Abstract
Outlines Project Libra's survey research methods to study psychological differences among smokers, people who have never smoked, and ex-smokers' attitudes regarding smoking and health. Describes questionnaires and defines sample size. Results of data analyses will be presented in future reports.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Author
- Oldman, Martin (INFOTAB Assistant Secretary General)1989
- Recipient
- de Siqueira, C.J.P. (Scientist at BAT 1975-76)Scientist at British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd.(?)in 1975-76.
- Felton, David Geoff Dr. (Sr. Scientist for BATCo R&D '75-76)
Dr. Felton was senior scientist for the Research and Development Dept of British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd. from 1975 to 1976. Felton received a copy of "Project Wheat--Part 1" dated 7/10/75 and "Project Wheat--Part 2" dated 1/30/76 (Project Wheat 1&2).- Gibb, Robert "Rob" M. (ITC Attorney in Montreal CA)
Robert M. Gibb, Esq. was an attorney for Imperial Tobacco, LTD in Montreal, Canada, circa 1973-81- Green, Sydney James "Jim", Dr. (BATCo R&D Research Director, Southampton)
Senior Scientist for the Research and Development Dept. at British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd. in 1975. Deceased as of 1994 (G. Bell LT Waxman 5/16/94). Head of BAT research for 19 years and a member of the board of directors of BAT (Source 3/24/94). Green received a copy of Project Wheat--Part 1 dated 7/1/75 and Project Wheat--Part 2 dated 183076 (Project Wheat 1&2).- Hughes, Ivor Wallace, Dr. (CEO Brown & Williamson, TI Executive Committee)
Ivor Wallace Hughes was The Chief Executive Officer of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company in 1983, also served on the Tobacco Institute Executive Committee in 1983 and was CTR Director 1/28/83.- Kruszynski, A.J. (BAT Attorney c. 1975-76)
Kruszynski was a attorney for the British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd. in 1975-76. A.J. Kruszynski, Esq., received a copy of Project Wheat-Part 1 dated 7/10/75 and Project Wheat-Part 2 dated 1/30/76 (Project Wheat 1&2).- Nicholls, R.G., Esq. (BAT Attorney 1975-76)
Nicholls was a attorney for British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd. in 1975-76. R. G. Nicholls, Esq. received copy of "Project Wheat-Part 1 dated 7/10/75 and Project Wheat-Part 2 dated 1/30/76 (Project Wheat 1&2).- Rittershaus, E.
- Sanford, Robert A. (BW RD&E VP, Research Director)
- Seehofer, F. (BATCo Scientist, Germany, c. 1975)
- Wade, R. S. (BW R&D Director)
R. S. Wade is a former Research & Development director for Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Wade is deceased as of 1994 (G. Bell LT Waxman 5/16/94). Attorney for British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1975-76); "R. S. Wade, Esq." received copy of "Project Wheat--Part 1" dated 7/10/75 and "Project Wheat--Part 2" dated 1/30/76 (Project Wheat 1&2). - Felton, David Geoff Dr. (Sr. Scientist for BATCo R&D '75-76)
- Hypothesis
- Women TargetingCigarettes designed to target women
- Behavior Targeting
Cigarette's effect of enhancing/mitigating specific behaviors- Health effects
Design changes which have measurably altered health effects of cigarette smoke, both for smokers and nonsmokers.- Measuring human smoking behavior
Measuring the effects of changes in human smoking behavior on intake of nicotine and smoke constituents.- Smoking psychology and behavior
- Behavior Targeting
- Keyword
- Behavior targeting
- Benefits of Smoking
- Physiological effects
- Psychological effects (Experimental psychology)
Perception patterns, inhalation patterns, and effect on delivery- Satisfaction
- Sensory response
- Smoker behavior (Human smoking behavior)
Puff parameters, daily intake, etc.- Smoking and Health
- Total particulate matter (TPM or Tar)
- Benefits of Smoking
- Smoke Constituent
- Nicotine
- Total particulate matter
- Operation/Project
- Project Aquarius (De-nicotinized cigarette)Philip Morris plan to produce and market a de-nicotinized cigarette (1989)
- Project Libra
- Named Organization
- England, Gross and Associates Ltd.
- Group Research and Development Center (Research center for BATco in Southampton, England)
- Subject
- Behavioral Effects (Effects)
- health effects
- Test/Smoking Behavior (Testing)
- health effects
Document Images
J
C~
Z
m
0
0
z
Q
|
CIGARETTE SMOKIIIC, I-]~AI,THu AND DISSONANCE
(PROJECT ~ IBRA)
I. INTRODUCTI0}; A~D lff~T}IOD
23.4.1979
AUTHOR: M. Oldman
ISSUED BY: D.J. Wood
PKOG. RE~. 13.02.05
DISTRIBUTION:
Dr. S,J. Green
Dr. I.W. ~igh~s
Dr. R.A. San~ord
R.M. Gibb, Esq.
RoB. Wade~ Esq.
R.G. Nichull~, E~q.
Herz E. Rintezshaus
Dr, F. Seehofer
Mr. A.J. Kr~szynski
Dr. C.J.P, de Siquelra
Dr. D.G. Feltcn
Library
Copy No.
I, 2, 3
4
5, 6
7
B, 9, lO
ii, 12
13
14
15
16
17
IE, 19
coPY NO. ~
Group ~esearch & Develupment Centre,
British-American Tobacco CO. Ltd.,
SOUTHAMPTON.
23rdApril 1979.
CIC/~ETTE ~MDKINC~ ~EALTH, AND DISSONANCE
(p~OJECT LIBRA)
I. INTRODUCTION AbID ~TIIOD
(Report No. 11D.1670 Ke~r{eted)
8U~A~Y
Project LIBRA is a comprehensive quantitative survey undertaken
amcn~ cuTre~t Ci~ar~tt~ smokers~ ~x-smok~ ~d nev~r-s~ok~s i~ the
United Kingdom. The principal oDj~tives ~f the ~search are to
~rpl~rc
(1) the ~ays i~ which Smo~ers~ ex-smokers a~d ~ever-smokers
can be distinguished in terms of their attitudes to health
i~ g~eral, am~ smoking and health in ~articul~
ang (il) th~ indica~ o~ p~y~hological dlffer~nce which b~t predict
the modeCs) of conflict resolution an i~dividual will employ
i~ rela~icn to smoking and concer~ for heal~h.
Th~s report dc~crlh~s thc ~a~gro~nd to the ~tudy, th~ select~o~
oE items £oc inelu~in~ in the qttastionn~ire, and datail~ o~ the ~ampling
an~ administration procedure~ adopted. The results of the da~a anal~ses
will be ~re~en~ed ~ future rep~rt~. ~I
-2-
INTRODUCTION
It is no~ nearly thirty years since Wy~der and Graham reported that
~0hacco smoking "seem~ to be an i~ortan~ £~c~or i~ the i~du~d0~ Of
br~nchloge~ c~re~nom~" (i). $d~ce then a~-~mok~n~ ~amp~gn~ h~ve
U*K. and U.S.A., and other countries, health warnings Save appeared on
~igar~t~e packets, ~moki~g ~ ~er~adn public place~ has been r~8~ric~ed
a~ advertising on televi~io~ ~ ~e~n b~n~d in ~o~ =~untr~e~ ~nd
prohibited al~og~t~r in o~her~. A~ a ~o~quen~e, th~ ~ci~ c~ate
regardi~ ~okin~ h~ chau~ed ~nd it is ~nlikely tn~t anyone in toe
U.k,s ~ l~a~ i8 u~aw~ of ~o~ ~ly Lh~y ~h~uld n~ ~laok~. ~en~s
most ~m0~er~ ~i~h ~o quit ~moking.
Re~ult~ from the ~eee~ Operation Aquarius (2~ have i~di~ated that
more ~h~n ~i~ty ~ercent o~ the U.K. smoker p0pu[atiou ~an ~ described
a~ ~i~on~. T~t i~ t~ey ~re e~per~dng ~e conflict between wh~t
Lh~y ~o ~d ~a~ ~hey bel~eve ~ey ~hould do. ~pe~ifi~ally, the7 w~h
~o step smoking. ~or mo~e £han half of those smoke~ w~o Sad attempted
to ~£v~ up ~mo~ng By h~1~h ~on~er~i
I~ i~ p~s~ible to de~ine ~our gr0~s withi~ a ~mok~ population,
expressed by their h~v~ou~ a~d ~tiLude~ to sm~k~g:
~ig~ly ~onso~a~ - tho~ wh~ ~av~ ~o~ tried ~or wish ~o quit;
Consonant - thcs~ who h~ve tried but ~o ~ot ~o~ish ~ qui~;
~isso~n~ - ~h~s~ who wi~h ~ qui~ buL h~ve ~L tried;
Hd~ly Dissonant - tho~ who wi~h to qui~ and h~ve attempted to do ~o.
650032500
-3-
According to da~-a derived from Operation Aquarlus= the relative
sizes of thes~ segments are as follows:
Highly Consonan= 20%
Consonant 16%
Disson~t 13%
Highly Dissonant 50%
The high/y dissonant smoker is most likely to 5e in the abe range
Z5 to 34 years a~d ~o smoke 15 to 29 clgare~tes per day, In cuuL~ast~
si~ty percent of all highly Consonant smokers are aged ah least ~5 years
and one quarter of them smoke five or les~ cigarettes per d~y.
When asked "~at ,;ere the reasons that made you give ~p?" (ex-smokers),
or ~'~ha~ were the reasons ~hat mad8 you ~ry ~c give up.~'F (smu~eu~)j Lh~
following distribution of responses was obtaineR:
E~-sm~k~s
SMokers
Cost 3~ 43
Health (specific) 35 30
Heal~h (~eneral) 30 g8
O£llcr 9 13
0;~ particular intero~t in =hose data is the apparent dlffcrcncc in
the r~latlve importance of ~ost an~ he~Ith. ~or ~mokers wh~ had fgil~g
to quit, Cost was cited m0s~ often as th~ mo~iva~io~ to at~E~Ipt~ whereas
l~s~ ~-smokcr~ w~rc ~romp~ed by this reason* Th~ obvious in~erpretatlon
o~ ~hi~ finding is cha~ tho~a £o~ who~ quitting i~ ~he only ~isfac~ry
m~ns t~ re~olve the e~n~llct b~tw~e~ ~ok~n~ ~n~ he~Ith cor~ern h~e
A
~Iready done so. Therefore~ ~he difference betwee~ s~oker~ a~nd ex-smokers
-4-
in ~his re4ard, is historical. An alternative hypothesis can, however,
hc advanced: tha~ those who ha~'e attempted to qu~ hug £ail~d, deny the
importance el concern for h~th ~ a ~o~ve ~n or~r to as~L~Ze ~he
dissonance which remains.
Whils~ such a~ hypvthe~is i~ ~11y L~nLaLivu~ iL hi~hlighLs an
important g~p in our le%owled~ of the ~onsum~r: how do~s he rcmaln a
~moher despite the apparently good re~sons her him to stop ~oklng? It
is our contention that all dissonant smokers, and probably some apparently
consonant smokers~ maintain their hehavlour only by making some psychological
adjustments to r~ducc th~ conflict h~tw~e~ smoklm~ an~ Co~c~r~ fo~ h~slth.
It ha~ ~Iready heen suggested tl~t one way of r~dueing conflict is to deny
or devalue the health argument. We would suggest tha~ th£re are at least
llv~ modes ~hr~ugh which s~h a defense may be ~b~ained.
(a) ~ ratlon~li~ing the healt~ i~ue. For exampl~ ~ smoher
may maintain ~hat there is too m~ch ~uss being made about
~he lisks a~Eaehing to smoking~ or ha may assert that "smoking
does not hur~ anyone ~o lo~g as they show no signs of heal~h
problems".
(~) By "statistical" rationalisation of the health issue. This
mode wo~Id he r~lle~tud in agreemczi~ wlch s~ch s£~men~s as;
l'Cigaretto ~moklng only makes it nero likely thnt you %'ould
get an illness you would get anyway" a~d "~4any non-~nokers die
of illnesses that are often said to be CaUSed by smoking
clgaregL~u",
i
Both nodes (a) and (h) share a fatalistic disposition and offer the
rationalization that, through accidents or ageing, people die anywsy .....
-5-
(¢) By modifTimg smohlng heh~v:our. This is a more truly rational
approach and would eli~i~ concordance with such s~a~e~en~ as:
"There is ~oL~Lin~ w--o11~ wiLh ~mokiL~g ~o long as i~ is ~n
~o~er~tlont1~ ~d "Lo~ t~r ~B~ette~ ar~ safer th~n hish
tar ~ig~ettes"~ However, bellef an~ ~tlo~ ma~ no~ ma~h.
Faith in "~er" smoking is pr0b~bly no~ s~ffi~ie~t ~0 re~olve
¢onfli¢~ and would .~eed to ~e ~uppor~ed by appropriate buying
a~d ~onsumption bchaviour t~ be ~ff~tive.
(d) ~y denyln~ th~ authority o~ ~t~mokln$ information. Evidence
from Operatio~ ~q~a~ius (o~,cit°) suggests that smokers ~re l~ss
likely than ~on-smo~ers ~o b~li~v~ "th~ ~hi~gs L|~ ~h¢ ~ovcrnm~nt
say~ about clga~cttc smol~ing and its 9f~¢ct~ on he~ith" ~nd les~
likely ~o a~e~t I~th~ things ~o~t0~s say about cigarette smoki~
arF/ i~s ef£ec~- o.~ healthI' - ~he latter becaus~ do¢~0rs themselves
~k¢ amd "do¢~o~ donTt a~&ys ~ w~th one a~o~h~r".
~ ls not ~ested that th~ ~%ode~ o~ ~onfli~ r~oi~o~ or r~d~tlon
a~e exclusive cr ~n~epende~. Recent Canadian data (3) supports ~h¢
existence of s~veral f~to~ in this ar~a. The fi-~th suggested mode
o£ deai~ wi~h ~cr~flic~ i~ pcrhap~ ~h~ mcs~ ~ionnl and ~ likely to
(e) BY ackn0wled~in~ the risks ~ttache~ to smoking. SUC~ a mode
"smo~£ng might ~ ha_~aful but ~ cannot stop" or "th~ ~njoym¢~
6:
I get from ~m0kii~g is w0r~h any small ri~ks it might involve".
I~ ~he latter case, agre~me~ p~esupposes that ~h~ risks a~e ~'~
genuinely p~rceived ~s I1~m~ll1~ ~r that ~me ~ati~ali~Lio~ ha~
-6-
~or the smoker, ~hese and perhaps other ways o= recon~'illng smokini
with concern for health ~re available and operating ~ingly or in
comhi~tlon, They ar~ h~w~ve~ uusu~i~l, Oth~wi~c~ h~if of Lh~
smoker population w~mid not ~pr~ss th~ wi~h to qui~ h~camse of th~i~
health co~cern. Beceuse len~l, or ~educ~i~n of its fmpcrta~ne, ~s
itself a means of partially resolving conflict, then concern ~or health,
detel~ined solely by direc~ questioning, is likely =o yield am underesnima;e
of its importance ~o some cmolears.
In terms of sustained c~ntinuat~on of smokgni hehavfour, only
twenty percent of ~he current U.K. mmrket can be considered "safe",
that i~ ~hey ar~ highly ~onsonaut, nelLh~r wi~hlni to nor ~'~r hav~zi
attempted tD quit, The i~odiato ~'loss potc~tlal'F of dissonant smokers,
who wish to hut have not yet attempzed to give up smoking, is estimated
at 13~, with a further 5Og hiihly dissonant, who have tried to q~it and
failed ~o far,
~t is 0%,~ v~w that the tr~e loss pot~ntlal is much ~reater than
those waiting to try but tha~ we do no~ have sufficient means of identifying
the long term hehavioural fate of eurxen~ smokers, The pr~sen~ research~
Project LIBRA~ will bclin = prosra~ue to better charae=ariue the smoker
popll~at~o. ~n re]at~on to concPrn ~ hee~th, wh{eh ~men~o~ ~ clearly
one of th~ most influeRtial in the Be~mentati0n of a ConteMporary market.
FROJECT LIBKA
pro~ect LIBRA addresses itself to the folloi~i-ng questions:
l~i what ~-ays can smokers, ax-smokers arid never-smokers he disti~gulshed
in terms of their attitudes Co heal~h in general, and sleohlng a~d
health in particular? (Attitudes to health.)
-7-
2. Which indices of psychological difference best distinguish 5etweea
ingividuals ~ko redl*ee conflict bet~n smoking and h~ith concern
by various mesn3 (such as modifying their smoking behaviour, adopting
variou~ ~ud~ u£ di~so1~auee reduetlon, etu.) and betwee~ ~lese and
successf~l quitters and n~ver-smo~ers? (Individual ~iffer~nces.)
Att~,~e~ tn ~e~Ith
Data obtained from Operati0~ Aquarius indicate that smokers, ex-smokers
and u~v~L-smok~s ~x~r~s~ difi~L~t ~LtlL~d~ toward~ ~moklug ~ud h~alLh° -
For ~xample, 87% o~ ex-smok~ and 89% of never-smoker~ agreed wi~h th~
statement ~hat "e~Ear~tte smmkiug is harmful to health", w~ereas only
7g~ of s~okers a~reed with this assertion. Althaugh the majority of
smokers agree ~i~h ~he proposi~io~ in a general way~ ~hey ar~ le~
~neern~d when a~k~d about the possible effo~t~ o£ ~moking on their own
h~alth. This a~pareut coutradietlo~ is a f~rther reflection of cognitive
dissonance (4).
In a re~ent market segmentatio~ study carried out in Canada (3)s
fcu= meier se~nents o~ the ~mok~r population were id~n~ifiGd. Concern
for health, or lack of it, was a major differentiating feature for each
of the segments. Members o~ Eke largest segment appear to have resolved
their conflict 5y modifying their smoking behavlour. Such eonsu~rs
:m
w~re found to more of~em want a Io~ tar and nicotln~ product, perceive
mildness ~o be of greater importance, to smoke fewer cigarettes, and to
generally present a ~or~ health conscious profile. In terms of a soeio- M~
~conomi¢ index they ~re classified ms predominantly medlum-hlgh to high.
An ~lmoat diametrically opposed segment was ~lso r~vealed, comprising-
about 25% oi all ~anadiam smokers. High imner mead motivation, a decided
lack of conceri~ ab~n:C tas and nieuuine, a high smoking volu~e, a
-8-
requlrement for a strong proguet~ a~d a low level of health concern
ehnraeterlsed this group. TheF were predominantly'young and male and
proportionately more represented in tile medium-low to low .~o~io-
econou~e ~roup.
~rom the --o~going, two important points srise. Firstly, overt
queszio~ing about smoking a~i health concern differentiates smoke~s,
ex-$mokers and never-smokers and, within the smoker populatio~ has
an important role to play in segmenting a ¢o~t~porary market. Secondly,
questions abou~ hsalth have hitherto always bee~ linked ~ith smoking
hehavlour with no attempt being made to view expressions sf concern
about specific health issues (i.e. related to smoking) in a wider context
of ~eneral attitudes t~ healtk. Coulg it heI for ex~/n~le~ that non-smoke~s
are, as a group, mor~ generally conscious of their health and physical
well-being ~ha~ smokers?
Because we doubt that for ~onle smokers~ real concern for health
ds adequately reflected in their answers ~e specific smoking and health
questions, {t is azl important a~pect of this study ~o aompar~ general
a~ti~des to health getwae~ smokers, ex-s~okers a~d never-s~okers. This
will puovlde a COilte~z in whluh £u ~udge ~p~uifi~ e~pie~bluns r~a=dlu~
smoking ~ health. Fur~ker~ore, it ~ilh be impor~&nt to gete~ne
~hether, for example, consonant and dissonant smokers ~re dlfferentiahle
in t~rms of general a~tltudes to health. We might ~pect tha~ the
rat£ona!~ 6on~on~t smoker is likely to ha%-e a fatallstlc attitude to
health gene.~&lly~ ~hereas the ~isso~l~ ~moker~ gepen6g~g ~po~ his
partleular mode of conflict reduction, ~ight have a more "arc<ious"
.perception of his well-being. Comparisons between smokers and ex-smokers
, )
and n~vQr-smoker~ can slmilarly b~ ~xp~cted to p~oviRe farther insights
~nt~ broad health perc~pt~an and it~ ~ffect i~ determining behavi~ur.
IndiVidual Differences
It is ~o b~ expected that an indlvidu~IIs att~tud~ and ~ehavlour
regardln~ h~ o~ health w~ll ~e r~flect~d ~n varicu~ indices o~
individual difference. For example, the d~mension cf locus of control
r~cognis~ that some people h~e a~ internal io~ o~ ~ontrol (i.e. they
p~rceiv¢ th~m~ive~ as h~ving co~i~rabl~ influence in determining th~
course of their lives), while others are more ~xternally (~,~. fatali~ti~ally)
controlled. ~e~o~s with an internal Io~u~ of control are le~s likely
~o ~ cig~rett~ smokers~ people ,~ith ~ external l~eus of Control ~ho in
£aet ~moke ar~ l~ss llk~l~ to q~it than tho~ ~ith a.n inter~l lo~us of
~ontro~ 4
Th~ ~i~i~g that ~mok~rs ar~, On average, l~o~e e~ra~erted than
non-smoker~ is well e~L~bli~h~d (~) aud Lh~r~ i~ ~u~ ~od ~vid~u~e
h~v~ ~ome power ~ predicting ch~g~ ~n ~okin~ ~h~vi~u~, ~itk s~-~bl~
ext~averts among me~ being ~ost likely ~o stop smoking (6). More
generally~ £~ i~ to ~e e~pected that n~u~otlci~m i~ highly .~orrela~ed
~h introspective -=~ars about one'~ ~ell-belng ~ that th~ dimension
is li"~ely to ha~e some predic+.ive power in differentlatin~ consonant
~nd di~sona~ ~oke~s and e~-~mokers ~ithin the gener~l pcp~laLion.
~m~larly~ ~n~r~ measure~ of ~iety c~ b~ ~p~c~d ~o b~ o~ ~1~va~c~
in th~ r~gard.
Project LIBRA incorporates indices of locus of eontrc1~ ne~troh~elsm
~d a~le~y because these have bee~ shown ~o be r~l~ed ~c ~moki~g
-I0-
behaviDur and concern for health, and it is expected that they will be
of f~r~her use in the sub-~la~slfi~a~ion of attitudes which is in~Ld~d
here. Of less i~med~tely apparent utility are thr~e further indi~s which
have been included: of ego-strength, of social desirability, and of
authoritarianism.
Th~ Tbomas-Zande~ ego-strength scale (7] was developed oziginally
to measure ego-~trength as it ~elated to su~eeptihillty to group pressure.
Ego-strength is concept~allzed in two parts. First is a personWs
ability to ~e self-directing and to translate i~teRtions consistently
into bebaviour (i,e. executive ability), gecong~ is the aLgllty ~o
control az~d discharge tension ~lthout disrupting other p~yehologleal
processes (i.e. tension ton=iol). The s=ale has been found to have
reasonably goDd test-retest [eliabilit~ aug s~tisf~ory convergent
and predictive validity (8). The scale ha~ no~ bean widely distributed
bena*ise there ~s sema noncern abos£ social des~rabi~ ~ty e~fOll~d~g.
~owever~ the iRcorporatio~ iK tkis research o~ £~rther items to ~es£
~hls possible feature should pcovlde sufficient ~[le~k on L]t~ vuraciL),
of ~he ago-streng~h respomses ~iva~. The pote~£ial rela£1omshlps
between ego-strength and both quitglng behavieur a~d the manageme~g
of dlsson~%ee are readily apparent.
Th~ tendency for some q~estlonnaire respendents to ~fake good"
is well known. ~t ssems pa~tlc~larly importar~ in ~he pres~n~ s~udy
to attempt to measure and control any such tendency, for both intrinsic
and e~trinsi~ reasons, l~rinsically~ some check oR Khe KruEhfulness
of r~spons~s is requlre~, particularly in relation to the other
&:
-II-
psyehographlc data. Extrinsically, the actual prevaleuee of "faking good~'
within and between the "~arlous smoking/non-~moking sectors is itself of
interest and of direct relevance Lo Lhe medea o~ conflict ~e~olutio~ under
investigaLiuu.
The final dlmenolo~ of psychological differcn~ to b~ studied is
a~thoritarlan£sm. The authors o£ Lh~ orlgi~al F-scale (9) eoneelved ef
the author!taria~ personality as Comprising ~i~e varifies : ~o~ventie~alis~,
de~t~u~tiv~e~s~ eynlclsm, projectlvity, an~ sex. Of the several £orm~
of the F-scale now available only the four-item que~tlonna~re (I0) is
appropriate ~or the present purposes. Authorita~ianis~ is included i~ th~
~resenL ~udy 5euause it is b~llev~d ~ have sofia ~o~e~ial valu~ i~
~i~f~rentiatin~ the populatio~ ~ub-group~ of in~r~s~ and ca~ be expected •
to eo-~ary with so~e of the other dimen~[en~ being measured. Of particular
~nte~est a-~e the relationships he~ween denial of authority and ~u~horinaria*nlsm
a~d between g~neral attitudes ~o h~al~h and autho~i~arlani~m.
Covert [~ie~t~o~ o~ C~neern for Uealth
It is an assumption implicit in our general thesis re~arding smoki~
a~d disso~nc~ thai a~t~al ~nc~rn for heal~h a~d =_xpressed Conc~r~ for
heal~h ar~ not~ for some smok~r~ p~rfe~tly correlated. At high a~t~al
lev~Is~ exp~esslo~s ~ c~nce~ may be sup~e~se~ to ~ive ~ dlstorte~
picture of the individual's real a~ti~ude. Thi~ hypothesized relationshi~
is prese~ed sch~maL~a~ly belu~°
hi
Expressed ~on~errl
for health
lo
~ct~l~] c otlc e rn
Io hi
for health
Tt wottTd meem +mpnrtant to e+tshliBh s "tr~e" ~as~rl of eonce~l%
for health for two r+as0ns+ Firstly, and of implicit value to the
present projectj the amount of ~ismaEch ~eEween expressed add acKu~l
health conce~ i8 a me.sure of a~tealpted ~onfllct resolution, Secondly.
s~ of w~r eve~tt1~1 8ppl~estlon, ~y measure ~hich ~s found to correlate
highly with true health concerti but ~hich did not rely on explicit
reference to h~al£h would ~e of potential value in deEermining ~he
level and dlstri~tiom of ~ealth eone~rn in mar~e~s where direg~ mathod~
are considered ~napproprlate or inopportune.
With any questionnaire, the validity of Khe data obtained depends
upo~ the ability a~d readiness of the respondents to answer the questions
as accurately and honestly as possible. The results of a recent study
to assess the present level of public kn0wled~e concerning the relationship
heEween the harmful effects of smo~iRg and health (II) support =he
suggestlo~ that s~ok~rs ~ey d~liberat¢ly deny to others, and possibly
to themselves, a eomnee~on ~et~ee~ smok~ ~ as~n~{Ated diseases. It
could be argued that smoker~ a~e at least as well informed as non-smokers
about 5he possible heal~ daugers of s~i~ki*ig. Iitdeed~ ~moke~s are as
likely as anyone else to k~ow of ~he assoc~atlo~ 5et~een s~oklng rand
-13-
some diseasess and an'/ apparent discrepancy ~etwee~ the level of knowledge
found in smokers and ~ smokers may not simply be a rcflectiot~ of how
well informed ~ith~r group de. Th~ proh~hdlity has to be considered
that smokers are more ready to deny the validity of the evidence, or to
COnSCiously suppress their ~wareness Df overt propag~.~da.
CuLtv~r~ely, it ha~ to b~ allowed that no,t-smokers, especially
ex-emokere a~e probably more pre?ared to attribute harmful effeet~ to
cigarette smcklng, and this nay serve to it.crease any observed difference
in knowledge between zhe various groups.
Insofar a~ che information to be collected in order to a~swer the
other queetiang po~ed for thio r~earch i~ of relevanee~ the opportunity
wln b~ take~ to invegtigate the f~asibility of develop;~g ~ covert dr~dex
of health concern. It is to be expected, however, Lhat additi0nal re~earch
beyond the scope of the pre~ent study will be required in thds conneetlon.
Addit[onaI it.formation to he Collected
In addit~o~ to the questdons relaUlng to general health and
psychographics described above, which all reepondengs answer, smokers
~nd e~-smokers have beclx pre~entcd with question0 concerning their smoking
(or prevlou~ s~oklng) behaviour and mot~vatdon. ~n th~s way ~nfor~tloa
OR co~8umDti~~ brand choice~ and s~itehin~ will be obtained to~ether
with ~easu~e~enL~ of fu~dameltg~i dim~£tsio~s Of ~loklng m~iva~iol%.
I~ i~ acknowledged that resporlgeg abo~t pr~vlouo ~e~viour ~I~
motivatlon elicited from ex-&mokers of long s~anding are at the mercy of
potentially inaccurate recall. In is aevertheless ~mportant to attempt ~D
~o collect such retrospective information both for adeq~at~ description
of th~ ~x-~moker an6 to compare recant and Stable quitters.
g
-14-
RESEARCH ~THOD
The $~mpl~
~h~ target sample s£~c for th~ study is 2,000 re~pQnd~nts. B~sed
upon data from Op~rnt~on Aq~ariu~ (~p.cl±.) th~s ~n ha e~ected to
yield three majer sub-groups, as ~oll~s:
740 (37~) current ¢~re~te ~ker~
52G (26~) ex-c£~ar~t~ ~moke~
7~0 (37X) ~he ~ave never smoked manufactured clgare~tes.
'lhe quota controls have been Se~thi~ each of ~he'se sub-sampl~s
pr~portiun~e ~o ~he dcm~sraphic profile of ~ach ~£ ~h~se ~roups, a~ai~
5asc~ on Opcr~io~ Aquarlus ~ta. The q~ta~ s~t for smokers ~crez
Sex
Age: I~-2~ years
• 25-4~ years
A5-75 ye~
Class: A. ~, C1
CZ
D, E
Th~ ~uotas ~or never-~mokers an~ e~-smo~ers ~ere ~et ~n men and w~men
"by a~e (three ~roups) ~ith overall class controls (three ~roups). The
detailed quuta ±nfu~t~ua £~ ~e~ in Table I.
For re~o~ wh~ci~ll 5~come clea~, the le~h o~ ~n~ervi~w varle~
W
by s~h-grou~ b~t respondents who q~ali~y for ~he lon~er interview (~mokers
and ex-smokers) received a sm&ll ince~ive payment for ~heir co-operation.
Th~ 2~o00 interviews were conducted i~ 100 sampl~n~ po~nt~ spread
~hrou~hou~ ~e ~oun~ry ~n~ selecte~ On ~ repre~ent~tlve B~i~ proportionate
-15-
to the population. Each interviewer conducted one pilot interview before
s tar ~ing flald~ork.
England, ~ro~e and Asso~iat~ Ltd. w~ra co~i~sloned by GK&DC
to undertake the fieldwork and tcp-li~e analyses. Subsequent analysis
will be undertaken by GI~&DC using an appropria~e da~a manag~nen~ syszem.
TABLE I
QUOTA IN~O~TICN
Total
gee
}[ale
Female
16-24
25-44
Class
A,B,CI
C2
D~E
Current
Manufactured
Cigare==e Smokers
740 52O
Male Female
(%) (Z) (%)
4g
65 35
52
I$ 7 7
38 26 34
47 67 59
29 4]
38 34
33 25
Ex-ManufaaLured Never Smoked
Cigarette Manufae=ured
Smokers I Cigarettes J
740
Male Femals
(Z) (%)
36 64
27 18
38 ~i
35 51
42
32
26
0_
-16-
Tile Qu~ti~im~[r~
D=taile~ design =£ the LIB~ questionnaire b~gan ~n 0ctobar, 1978.
Through discussions w~th England, Grosse and Associates Ltd., evolution
of the questionnaire was direcued towards a~hievi~g tn~ most comprehensive
d~t~ b~e from which to answer the major questlen~. In it~ flna] form,
i~ w~ e~rpect~d that ~mokQ=~ an~ ~x-smoker~ wo~id b~ involved ~th tha
~n~rvlewer for up to 90 n~u~s ~d naver-~mok~r~ ~o~ ~5~n~e~.
The questionnaire is presen~e~ i~ such a way that res~o~ce~ts are
u~aware at th~ ou~c that t~ ~j~r i~s~ i~ i~ ~e~i~g aL~ he~l~h.
Thus th~ p~cnographlc ~t~ and r~s~on~e~ t~ ~ner~] health ~tem~ ~re
recorded first a~d before questions relatln~ to smokln~ behav~our and
motivation, Depending upon ~heth~r ~he re~ponden~ ~ ~ cu~ren~ cigare~
~ok~ ~ cx-~mo~c~p or ~ ~cv~r-~okcr~ th~ ro~tc ~hrough t~c r~m~l~d~r
of the qu~t~n~re ~s deter~e~. Tbu~, th~ ~equence of d~ta b]ock~
~f~er the ~reliminary classificatory information is as sho~n in Table 2,
-17-
~ABLE 2
STEUCTURE OF THE QI~SSTION~IAIP~E
P SYCIIDGRAPIIIC8
CENERAL HEALTH
f
SMOKERS
I
SMOKINC ]
B~I~VIOUR
SMOKLNG
gHOKINC & ]
ATTITUDES • 1 • •
1
NEVER- SHOEERS EX-SMOEERS
PP, EVIO~/S
5NOKING
BEIi~VIOUR
1
1 1
EX-SHOKING
& HEALTH
ATTITUDES
I
SpIOKING AND ~ALTH ATTITUDES
Ps[¢hographle~
Tke ~ea~ons for salecting the particular indices used here have been
d~scussp~ earli~r. It will h~ recalled that m~asures of the follow~ng
dimensions were included:
locus of control (4 items)
Anxlety (4 items)
g11thoritarlanlsm (4 ~tems)
Ego-strength (7 items)
Burial desirability (6 item~)
~emro~iclsm (6 item~)
Responde~Lts self-completed all these scales whleh for leeus of control,
anKiety~ anthoritarlanism a~d ego-strength required mR iRdicatlon of
agreemen~/dlsagreem~nt ~3in8 ~he following scale;
Agree A~ree NeltherAgree
DisagrQe
StroL*gly ~or Disagre~
DisaEree StruL~gly
For social ge~iragillty a~d ~eur~ti~is~ a Simple flyer" Or "~o"
response is indicated.
The items selezted for the locus of control measure were taken from
Kotter'$ [nternei-External Locus of Control Scale (12); ~kose for ~he
anxiety measi~re came from the Tay]oz-Spe,~ Mani~est Anxiety Scale (13);
~or the authoritarisnism measure Lane's Four-item ;-scale (i0) was adopted.
and ~go strength is indicated by responses to ~h~ 7 Guttman scal~ iL~m~
eontalncd in the Thomas-Za~£er Ego Strength Scale (7).
The s~x items mea~urlng social ~e~lra~llty ger{ve from the Eyse~ck
Personality Inventory (14) and those relating to neuro~icism were taken
from Eysen~k (15).
-19-
General Health
ThE intemtlon of thi~ section is Lo ~au~e respondentsT attitudes to
their health and well-he'rig. I~ems in~lu~e m~asores of ~h~ r~mhe~ o~
occasions respondents have visited their d0ctor and/or been in hospital.
A 5-poin~ scale of agreement/disagreement is u~ed Lu d~t~rmi~L~ Lhe
res~ondentTs general parceptlon Qf ~S ~eaith throu6h fourt~e~ i~ems
(incl=din6~ for ~xample, "I ~t mor~ th~n i ~hould", "I exercise re~ularly"~
"there is too much fuss made ~bout what one should and should ~ot eat").
~r~her ques~io~ seek to ~easure ~he resp0~de~I$ readlness to ~e
medication ~h~n ~u~fcrlng four common acut~ ailments (he~dache~ cold~
s~re throat, ~nd indigestlon). They ar~ a'so asked if they are currently
taking, or h~ve ever taken, a~ty tranquillizers/s~da~ives. ~evel of
c~sumptio~ of £ea~ ~offee~ and alcohol ~r~ also ~ecorded.
~t thi~ point ~po~d~n~s ar~ routed through t/l~ remainder o~ ~he
questlonn~ire aacordlng to their ~oklng status.
Smokers - ~moki~g 6~havio~r
Information r=-gardlng l~ngtk of ~ime as a ~mok~ l~v~! of consumption~
current and prevlo'is hr~ds, sr~ reasons foz =~itehlng is recorded hero.
Smokers - Smokln~ Motivation
The early items i** Lhls smcLion were derived from a reeen~ qualitative
s~udy, Pzoject VIREO, and have be~n described in detail elsewhere (16).
~ther q;~estlons enquir~ into the re~potldents* attempts to quit ~moklng~
their reasons for doin6 so and their reasons for s~arting again. The
pos~lbl~ ~o~seqsences of ~ui~Li~g for the imdividuad and ~he pressures
to q~i~ wkieh he/she feels to he under are also gauged.
~a
-20-
Smokers - Smok{ng and Health Attitudes
The flea[ sectio~ of the 8mog~r-sp~cifi~ i~em~ comprise~ a further
set ~f agre~/61sag~ec s~a~m~ts which ~fgect contemporary ~ttltudes
to ~moking a~d health ~nd embody some o~ the current ratlcnallz~t~o~
$~ok~s use to r~con¢ile their smoking ~d health concern. Two itoms
for each of the following modes a~e incl~de~;
Ratlonalize health issue
Compulsive usage despite re~ogn~tlo~ ~= health i~ua
"Statistical' rationalization of health issue
Modifying smoking beh~vluu~
D~nial o£ authority
F~t~llst[c ~tti~de to death.
A1s~ items on the social acceptability are included=
"gi~a~ett~ ~moKing is harmful to the haalth of non-smok~r~"
"Cig~r~tt~ sn~kimg i~ a d~rty haSit"
"Nowadays it is much less socially a~epta~le to smoke"
"Jus~ ~e~ause o~her people d~n'~ like smoking I don't see why
I sho~l~ ~ot smok~ in their pre~e~ee"
Ex-~mokers
The items for e~-smokers ar~ in the mos£ part similar to those for
smoker~, except tha~ th~ a~ ph~a~ ~ru~p~iv~ly (i.~. "wh~ you
were a smoker.,.."). Thu~ information on previous ~mo~ing 5ehaviour ~nd
motlva~ion is obtained. Statements regarding s~rength of intentio~
Ex-~mok~s are asked ~I~ i£ a~ythi~g~ ~hey~iss mos~ as a result of not~.
~moklng and~1~t ~ncequene~ for them ~ere noticed as a rm~It o~ n~t
smoking,
-21-
ALl - Smoking and Kealth Attitudes
The final section of the questionnaire is addressed ~u all z~spondents
~d e~qulres i~to n~are~e~ of Substances in clgarott~, pot~Lielly
harmful substances, the harmfulness of smoking, and physical effects of
smoking~ whether or not t~e respondent has tried to persuade someone
to give up smuhlng and who~ ~d wheLher friends and culleague~ ~r~ smuker~.
C~rrent cigarette ~oh~rs ~e ~Iso asked ~bout their ~ar~ness og
the tar and nicotine level of their brand, ways of reducing the risks
of smoking, and their 0~erall view regarding ~heir a~titud~ to smoking
and h~ith.
Ex-smohers are slso asked ~bout their a~areness of the t~ and
nicotine level of their hrand whe~ they were smokers.
~AcusAroj.
Project LIBI~A is an [nvestlgatlon of ~he relationships between
cigarette smoking, ~on~eru for health, amd dissonance. It i~ being
under~ak~n because insufficient knowledge exists regarding nhe ¢haracterlsti~s
of individuals who successfully qui~ smoking, those who are ~nsuccessfui i~
their attempts, and those ~ho do not express the wish to ~ry. In additlou
to th~ m~jor ohj~etlves already noted ~n respect of tg~s s~udy, an~e~s
to a number of supplementary questi3ns will be sought. For example, is
the ~urr~m~ (~i~pl~) defini~iou uf ~unsonance/dlssonance adequate to ~'
pr~diet b~havlour or can the deglnition he r~£1ned? ir~ attitudes to
smoking and health predictable from attitudes to health g~nera]ly? Are
attitudes ~o smoking and health, and attitudes to h~alth gener~lly,
related to psychological ~raits? Can vario~ modes of eonfllcL re3olution
be determined from an indlvidual% behaviour, attitudes, and tmait
structure?
-22-
Analysis of the data from Projact LIB-R~ can be expected to take
st least Lwelve mo~h~, It is intended that a series Of report~
b~ issued as particular ~sp~cL~ ~f the inf~rma~iu~ a~ di~t~d ~i~
i~tcrp~t~° The second rcpart ~ the ~crle~ ~ii bc conc~rna~ with
a highl~ght aualy~i~ o~ the top-line data.
g
-~3-
I~FEP~NCES
I. W)-nder~ E.L. and Ozaham~ E.A.
Tobacco smoking as a
possible
~tloTog[cal factor ~n hronch~ogen~e enreinoma: A study of 6B4
proved cases. J. Am~r. Mad. ASSOC.. (1950), 143, 329-336.
2. NOP Market Research Lid., Operation Aq~arlus: A p~enLaLi~L u~
the nain£indi~gs, ~ly 197g.
3. l~perlal Tobacco Ltd.~ 1977 segmentation of the Preneh- and ~nBllsh-
speaking Canadian ci~arotte market~. J~ne 1977.
4. NOF Marke~ Research Ltd. A ¢o~en~ary on: The ~ain fi~dlngs of
0pera~io~ A~uarlu~ A~g~t 1978.
5. 8~t~ G.M. P~r~o~]ity ~nd smoking! A review of ~he empirical
literature. In: LearniRg Mech~nis~s ~nd Smoking. ~d. W.G. ~unt~
(1970), Ol*i~a~o; dldi~.
6. Cherry~ ~. and K~ernmn~ K. ~ersonallcy seore~ and ~mo~ng behavlour:
lo.~i~udinal stud~. Brit. J. pre~. So~ Mad° (1976)~ 30, 123-131.¸
7. Zander~ A. and Thomas~ E. The val~dlty of a measure of ego-s~rength.
~pu611she~ paper~ The University of ~ichi~a~, Inatitu~e fo~ Social
Re~ear~h (1960).
8. KoDinso~ J.~. and Shaver~ ~.K° Measures o~ 8o~±al ~sy~hol0~ical
A~£~ud~, Unlv~r~i~y of Michigan. Institute fo~ Social ~esearch (1975).
~. Adorn~ ~. et al., The Author£torien Personality. ~ew Yor~:
Harpe~ (1950).
IO. Lane, R. Four item F-scale. In: P01itieal ?ersona[i~y and elec~0ra!
~oi~, American Political S¢i~nc~ K~vi~ (1953)~ 49~ 173-150.
A~hton~ ~.D. ~nd Lloyd, G. CigareLte ~mok~ng ~nd aseo~iat~d diseaseI
~pda~e. Ist Ma~ 1978. 1095-1101.
6500a25L l
-24-
12. R~tter, J.B. Generall~ed expen~ancles fo~ inter~al versus externel
control of reinforcement. Psychcl. Monogr. 1966, B0, (i Whole No. 609).
13. T~lur, J. A person~ll~y scale uf maillf~L ~itxiety. J, Abilucm.
So=. Psyehol., 1953~ ~j 285-290.
Eysene~, V.T. and Eysenek~ S.B.~. The Eysenek Parsona1~ty Tnventory.
LoRdon: [niversity of London Press Ltd., 1953.
15. Eysenck, E.J. A shorL questionnaire for the measurement of ~wo
dimensions of personality, d. Appl. Poyehol. (1958)~ 14, 14-17.
16. ~T Report ~o. RD.166g, Restr6eted, I~.d.79.
~0032~23
