157 



Demographic Characteristics: 



More men (Public Health Service Publication No. 1000, 1970); Proportionately 

 more 25-45 year-olds (Public Health Service Publication No. 1000, 1970); Lower 

 mean socio-economic class (Salber and MacMahon, 1961); Proportionately fewer col- 

 lege men (Higgins, Kjelsberg & Metzner, 1967; Lilianfeld, 1959); and. More urban 

 residents (Higgins, I^elsberg & Metzner, 1967). 



Many of these characteristics have little meaning without considerably greater ex- 

 planation than is appropriate for this presentation. Suffice it to say that the list 

 does summarize our state of knowledge on the smoker-nonsmoker differences. As for 

 the relevance of this knowledge to the question of motivation in smoking, I would 

 say that it is a rich source of hypotheses and hunches, but unfortunately, that is 

 about as far as it can take us. And I regret to say that the major effort of psycholo- 

 gists has been to search for these differences. Hull warned us 50 years ago that the 

 difference approach was a primrose path, but only recently have psychologists begun 

 to appreciate Hull's warning. 



The pharmacologists and physiologists have done much better, which leads us to 

 the second body of fact; the human physiological response to smoke. The list in 

 Table 2 again is a summary of our knowledge. To be sure there are other responses, 

 some of which have been noted in the literature, some likely yet to be discovered 

 but those listed have been reported by at least two non-related laboratories. 



Table 2— Transient Physiological Responses to Smoke Inhalation 



(1) Elevated heart rate; (2) Elevated coronary flow; (3) Elevated blood sugar level; 

 (4) Lowered cutaneous temperature in the extremities; (5) Increased blood flow in 

 skeletal musculature; (6) A reactive release of adrenalin; (7) Alterations in electrical 

 potential patterns of the brain involving alpha wave suppression; and (8) Inhibition 

 of patellar reflex. 



Where these responses have been plotted over time, they have been observed to 

 have their onset within several minutes of smoke inhalation, and they are short- 

 lived, having a decay function with a half-life of about 30 minutes. Onset and decay, 

 roughly parallel the coincident plotting of nicotine in the bloodstream. (Isaacs & 

 Rand, 1972). 



These facts are considerably more relevant to the motivation question than are 

 the facts about smoker-nonsmoker differences. In psychology, when we talk about 

 motivation we refer to a force which impels one to act, and the action is goal-ori- 

 ented. Hunger, for example, is a motive which impels one to the action of ingesting 

 food. The goal is a state of satiety. Reaching the goal is the reward, and the behav- 

 ior which is instrumental in reaching the goal is reinforced. 



With this in mind, we can now ask several questions "Are any of the listed physio- 

 logical reactions sought after by the smoker?", "Are these physiological reactions 

 symptomatic of a body state which is the goal of smoking behavior? 



One feature of the list which has impressed many investigators is its close resem- 

 blance to the physiological response pattern accompanjdng emotional arousal, such 

 as fear, anger, even joy. Is this perhaps the goal of the smoker, to achieve a body 

 state which mimics emotional arousal? 



In the context of this question, let us now turn to the third body of fact, the situa- 

 tional variables related to smoking behavior. So as not to bore you with references 

 and the recitation of all the evidence, permit me to present this body of fact in the 

 form of a summary statement: The rate and incidence of smoking varies as a func- 

 tion of external conditions which influence the emotional state of the smoker. The 

 evidence at hand permits us to go one step further; the rate and incidence of smok- 

 ing is highest at the extremes of the arousal continuum. 



If one were to plot smoking rate against some measure of the smoker's level of 

 bodily arousal, one would observe a nice U-shaped distribution. This observation 

 brings us full circle, for you will recall that at the outset of this presentation I 

 quoted the smoker as explaining his smoking in paradoxical terms: It calms me, it 

 stimulates me. 



You may also recall that I stated that the challenge to any explanatory theory 

 of smoking is to resolve this paradoxical duality of effect. At the St. Martin con- 

 ference. Professor Stanley Schachter, a psychologist at Columbia University, labeled 

 this as the Nesbitt paradox; Nesbitt being a student of Schachter's who called the 

 paradox to his attention. 



Let me state this psiradox as clearlv and succinctly as I can: The known physio- 

 logical effects of smoking are those that we consider as indicating body activation 

 or arousal. This fits in nicely with the smoker's statement "It stimulates me". But 

 it is highly discordant with the polar explanation which the smoker provides per- 



