521 





underCAkW tt UeaciCj ChoM ladlvidtult wbo found t tcroastr ch«a B, 

 ChoM vbo foMi E •croogtr chaa T «n4 cboM «^m (ognd eh« Cvo ei|ar«cCM 

 cqu«tlr acroog, ^1^ tb«a co ••« wbleh eC ch* eve eltAr«cc«« Mch lodltrlioal 



preferred. Th4^Te«itt« «r« thovn La T«bl« 18 which groupi retpoodcou 



^^ 

 by clutccr «ad by te^«l •' Heatth coQc«r«. 



A turprltlng feaCv^ of Ch* r«tulcs it Che lerge ainorlcy of 



respondeac* (31t overall, ^-41S U iadi^iduAl clu*ccr«) who perceived 



cigtrecee E «• tcrooger then F- A«tplt« Ici lower nicotine delivery. 



~ A* shown la Appendix I Chit cenxMt ^setblf b« etcriboted Co Che upper 



eW of Che nicotine d iter ibut ion for ifjpple I overlapping the lower cad 



of cKe nicotine distribution for aaaple F-tecauee Che extent of overlap 



% ^<> >. 



w»a aown^^ near sufficient. Product characteiMStlee OCher than nicotine 



delivery do r^A provide a satiafactory explanetiot^either. A possible 



clue auy %• Couo^Nry exaaining the detailed results u)r1(abl« II. 



Nearly YtalC che<^mplc (47X) reported F «s being stt4>gcr chaa E, 



which is in line wlcb th^r nicotine deliveries. Asong this sectioo of 

 respondents all four L0« Me^ clusters preferred C on balance, all three 

 High Need clusters preferred F d^balance, and the Hediua Need clusters 

 splic two and two with regard CO pret^rencc. So on this basis there was 

 a distinction between Low Need and Uign'^fcd clusters in the directioa 

 predicted by the hypothesis concerning preficred nicotine delivery. 

 However aaong the 31Z of the sample who, s3rpr i<!iigly, reported E as 

 being stronger Chan F a majority of every single cl^cer preferred F, 

 and there was no longer any distinction between Low Nee^-'and High Need 9 



clusters. It seeas just possible that many of those who reported E as -{^ 



being stronger Chan F were in fact rationalising on the basis nf- their » 



