526 





•cctpubt* ly « ^rtlcal«r coo«\flMr, tad tlue th« oicotla« lavcl which 

 •uiCt aoM C7p«s of coQtuaar aithc wtU b« v«r7 different fro« ch«t which 

 •uict ochar C7p«t« ; la or4«r to ccloce groups of coatuacri who aighe 

 lo|ic«ll7 b« cxp^ctd to rtquiro difftrcnc l«vtl« of alcotln*. ut« vaa 

 aadt of HcKcan«ll^mfpro«ch wH^h, aaoag other thia|i, (cperattt t«ok«rt 

 Into groupt vith difftrtftt d*tr««s of loner Need. On the bed* of the 

 findlogt reported b; Kcreoa^l to Che T.R.C. (S) It vet argued that hie 

 Inner Need dlBcasioa probably''J(^ined a rcquireaent for nicotine. The 

 hypothesis was fomulaccd that grovps of saokera with a high Inner Need 

 •<S>re would prefer relatively high nic6flne cigarettes and would reject 

 low hXcotiae cigarettes, whereas groups wl^ a lov Inner Need score 

 would probably find low nicotine cigarettes qui^ acceptable and aight 

 well frefer rhqa to those of relatively high oicoc$&f delivery. In 



<i< . . . . .. - . Q 



order to test thi^^po thesis, a saaple of U.K. aale saoJM^s vaa classified 

 into clusters using ><Mennell's cechnique, and was then as^«d to taakc 

 and consent on a range oT<jxpcri.s»«ntal cigarettes with different nieotiae 

 deliveries. At the saaa tiaC^ha opportunity was taken to record a 

 considerable quantity of laferma^bon concerning their general sacking 

 behaviour, since soae aspects of thiip behaviour were expected to depead 

 on their degree of Inner Need. Tbay wet^((>also asked a set of specially 



designed questions aiaed at exploring their concern for the possible 



A. 



^^ 

 health risks of snoking, because of the possibitTay that this aight 



influence their brand choice and their cossBeats on tt^ test cigarettes. 



In the earlier report (1) it was aentioocd that, soo^ years ago, 



the laperial Tobacco Coapany concluded that tha optiaua oicAiae delivery 



for U.K. sookers was around 1.4 ag per cigarette, and that any S^staotial q 



C 



