479 



-37- 



TABLE 12 



lEASON WHY LOW TAR BRAND NO LONGER REGULAR BRAND 



/:• 



, While those who claim to have givea up svoking low tar brands because 

 of their expense, or because they just vanted a change, are fairly evenly 

 distributed over the scale of concern for'be^lth, it is clear that those 

 who f ind xuch brands tasteless or too mild arc nredoaiaantly health- 

 conscious smoB^rs. Combining the information in Tables 11 and 12, ic 

 would appear thai~^4 considerable proportion of those wa.are prepared 

 to give low Car brandk;^ try are attracted to them for r^»ons of health 

 concern. Among those who^'^come into this category about 30Z find them 



-X> 



unsatisfying and, after • pevlod. change to a brand which is less mild 



and has more taste. 



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 





"y. 



Thii first part of the exercise has Reduced results from factor 



analysis and cluster analysis which are broadly comparable with McKennell's 



/ ^ ■ 



results, in spite of some deliberate differences in statistical methodology. 

 The twelve clusters which have resulted show wide separations both in 



the Inner Need factors and in the Social factors. External variables 



09 



c 



such as cigarette con&uzption, depth of inhnlation and the anticipated n' 



o 

 difficulty in giving up smoking are all positively related to the Inner ^ 



IS) 



