156 



(1) A convenient 35 cc mouthful contains approximately the right amount of nico- 

 tine. 



(2) The smoker has wide latitude in further calibration: puff volume, puff interval, 

 depth and duration of inhalation. We have recorded wide variability in intake 

 among smokers. Among a group of pack-a-day smokers, some will take in less than 

 the average half-pack smoker, some will take in more than the average two-pack- 

 a-day smoker. 



(3) Highly absorbable: 97 percent nicotine retention. 



(4) Rapid transfer: nicotine delivered to blood stream in 1 to 3 minutes. 



(5) Non-noxious administration. 



Smoke is beyond question the most optimized vehicle of nicotine and the cigarette 

 the most optimized dispenser of smoke. 



Lest anyone be made unduly apprehensive about this drug-like conceptualization 

 of the cigarette, let me hasten to point out that there are many other vehicles of 

 sought-after agents which dispense in dose units: wine is the vehicle and dispenser 

 of alcohol, tea and coffee are the vehicles and dispensers of caffeine, matches dis- 

 pense dose units of heat, and money is the storage container, vehicle and dose-dis- 

 penser of many things. 



So much for extolling the virtues of the rod. Let us go back now and pick up our 

 discussion of the motivational aspects of smoking. If we accept the premise that nic- 

 otine is what the smoker seeks, we've still not answered the question "Why do peo- 

 ple smoke"? We've merely reformulated it to read "Why does the smoker take nico- 

 tine into his system?" 



Systematic research on the question dates back some 50 years to the time when 

 American Tobacco Co. funded the work of a psychologist later to become the most 

 prominent American psychologist of his time. His name was Clark L. Hull. His 

 question then was "Wherein lies the charm of tobacco for those accustomed to its 

 use?" 



In order to review the data that has been collected over these intervening 50 

 years, I have organized it under three headings: 



(1) Differences between smokers and nonsmokers. 



(2) Human physiological responses to inhaled smoke. 



(3) Situational variables related to smoking behavior. 



First, then, let us quickly review what is known about the differences between 

 smokers and nonsmokers. 



Table 1— Individual Traits and Group Characteristics by Which a Group of 

 Smokers can be Distinguished From a Group of Nonsmokers 



Personality Traits: 



More independent (Pflaum, 1965); Greater anti-social tendencies (Smith, 1970); 

 More active, energetic (Schubert, 1959; Straits, 1965); Higher mean extroversion 

 rating (Smith, 1970); "Happy-go-lucky" (Smith, 1969); Higher mean measure of 

 "orality" (Smith, 1970); Poorer mental health (Smith, 1970); Less rigid, less orderly, 

 more impulsive (Smith, 1970); Greater reliance on "external" than "internal" con- 

 trols (Smith); More chance-oriented (Straits, 1963); More emotional (Smith, 1967); 

 Less agreeable (Smith, 1969); "Type A" personality (More time-conscious, competi- 

 tive, etc.) (Rosenman, 1966); Less "strength of character"; (Smith, 1969); and Higher 

 anxiety level (Walker, 1969; Srole, 1968; Thomas, 1968). 

 Life Style Characteristics: 



More business-oriented in occupation (Seltzer, 1964); Poorer academic perform- 

 ance (Veldman and Bown, 1969; Pumroy, 1967; Salber, 1962); More users of alcohol 

 (Higgins, Kjelsberg, & Metzner, 1967; Lilienfeld, 1969); More users of coffee and tea 

 (Lilienfeld, 1959); Religious service attendance less frequent (Cattell, 1967; Straits 

 and Schrest, 1963); Proportionately higher frequency of marriages and job changes 

 (Lilienfeld, 1959); Higher incidence of prior hospitalizations (Lilienfeld, 1959); High- 

 er incidence of smoking among parents (Salber and Abelin, 1967); More active par- 

 ticipation in sports (Lilienfeld, 1959); and, More auto accidents (lanni and Boek, 

 1958). 



Morphological Traits: 



Greater body weight (Seltzer, 1963); Greater height (Seltzer, 1963; Baer, 1966); 

 Thinner (Higgins and Kjelsberg, 1967); Higher height/(cube root of weight) ratio 

 (Damon, 1961); and. Thinner skin folds (triceps and subscapular) (Higgins and 

 Kjelsberg, 1967). 



