524 



-*♦- 



Iad{e»ttont fro* S«con4 T««C 



Bai«4 put^y on eh« aua6«r of rtspoiulne* •xprcttlai « pr«f«rcnc« 

 for oa« ci|ar«tt«^ivcc ch« other Ic would appear chat jute ovar half 

 the saapU pitfii^t clfarctta dcliveriag about 1.8 ■( aleodaa to on« 

 delivcrioi about I.IM nlootinc, tha lattar balag the delivery of th« 

 two Bosc popular cigareucs o« th« U.K. ourket. Contrary to the results 

 of the first test there Is B$,loog«r any iadicatioa that light saokera 



^-'_ and those who oormally smoke a 1^ nicotine brand are likely to favour 



- - ^ i 



• a cigarette delivering around 1 mg oLlotiaa; indeed both these categories 



ek^ressed a distinct preference for the'J^S ag cigarette. Again, as is 



the firat test, there is little indication^^XTpo the preference figures 



that the Kffc^fcd nicotine delivery increases O^ng wick the level 



of Innar leedii^ 0-^ 



Bowevsr it liyclear that the crude preference perc^magM ettly tell 



part of the story. ti(^t are sooe coaplex interactions involving th« 



/A 



perceived strength of a ctMrettc, its nicotine delivery, its acceptaae« 



by the siaoker, and the saokcr^i level of Inner Need. Answers to tha 



• . '^ 



question: "Dow strong or aili shcn^ a cigarette be if it is to suit 



you perfectly" varied between clustery and as the Inner Need level of 



the cluster increased so too did tha strcn^h of the cigarette which 



S 

 was regarded as "ideal". Of the two test cigifettes, the one which was 



- '^fc^ 

 judged closer to the "ideal" in strength vat pref»^ed by a substantial 



^^ 

 majority of all clusters. On average, cigaretta F wir^jrated stronger 



'.^^ 00 



than cigarette E, as would be expected froa their relative^nicotine C 



^ k 



deliveries; but 31Z of respondents actually rated E stronger if^tp F '^ 



>r ifvas 



for reasons which arc not obvious. Irrespective of whether C or i^as >i 



«o 



